↓ Skip to main content

Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London’s responsible officers and their appraisers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London’s responsible officers and their appraisers
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0438-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Griffin, Daniel S. Furmedge, Deborah Gill, Catherine O’Keeffe, Anju Verma, Laura-Jane Smith, Lorraine Noble, Ray Field, Celia Ingham Clark

Abstract

To evaluate NHS England London region's approach to the revalidation appraisal of responsible officers in London, exploring perceptions of the quality and impact of the appraisal process. Revalidation is the process which aims to ensure doctors in the UK are up-to-date and fit to practice medicine thus improving the quality of patient care. Revalidation recommendations are largely premised on the documentation included in annual appraisals, which includes the professional development a doctor has undertaken and supporting information about their practice. A pan-London qualitative study exploring the views of responsible officers and their appraisers about the revalidation appraisal process. The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the participants. Responsible officers were purposefully sampled to represent the broadest range of designated bodies. Data analysis generated themes pertaining to quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation with the potential to feed into and shape the evolving system under investigation. The central importance of highly skilled appraisers was highlighted. Both groups reported educational opportunities embedded within the appraisal process. Independent appraisers, not matched by clinical speciality or place of work, were considered to take a more objective view of a responsible officer's practice by providing an 'outsider perspective'. However, covering the breadth of roles, in sufficient depth, was challenging. Participants reported a bias favouring the appraisal of the responsible officer role above others including clinical work. Appraisal and revalidation was perceived to have the potential to improve the healthcare standards and support both personal development and institutional quality improvement. Responsible officers play a central role in the revalidation process. Getting responsible officer appraisal right is central to supporting those individuals to in turn support doctors and healthcare organisations in continuous quality improvement. The complexity and importance of the role of responsible officer may make achieving an appraisal of all roles of such individuals problematic. This evaluation suggests responsible officer appraisal was perceived as educational and effective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 15%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,664,841
of 16,245,589 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#820
of 2,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,197
of 251,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,245,589 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them