 |
Peer group visiting |
 |
|
Peer group visiting |
|
The opportunity, and it is likely, the need for a peer group assessment of
general practice training is upon us. I have experienced such an assessment when
a member of the Boston VTS. The practice assessment took place within the
scheme's half day release and I feel that the two half days required for
reciprocal visiting were some of the most informative and educational on the
scheme. They were of great value for both the trainer and the registrar and
served to improve the relations between individual trainers and registrars. The
scheme benefited as well, given the agreement that the feedback, once agreed
between the practices, was forwarded to the scheme and continuing peer review.
The visit took place between the trainer and the registrar from one practice visiting another practice, and performing an assessment according to a format previously agreed upon. This was followed by a reciprocal visit by the trainer and registrar of the previously visited practice returning the compliment. Both the trainer and registrar then write a report, and then submit it to those visited for discussion. Any points raised by the document were discussed, by correspondance. The final documents, signed by the visiting team, was then submitted to the scheme as a peer assessment of :
The process served several purposes;
What we felt emerged was a recognition and some objective evidence recognising the quality of the training being offered.
The visits were timetabled into the half-day release, and were seen as the teaching commitment for the week. This is most important as it reduced any perceived increase in absenteeism from the practices.
I can think of no occasions I witnessed where this wasn't seen as constructive , helpful, and encouraged those involved.
The visit was structured to discuss the following
Prior to the visit both the registrar and the trainer were asked if there was anything problematical in the training so far. If this was so it was suggested that the matter be discussed between the trainer/registrar prior to the visit, as sorting out bombshells dropped during the visit was not the overall aim. During the visit problems were likely to emerge and were open to discussion but solving any such problem was not the prime role of the visit.
The visit begins with a brief review of the material situation of the fabric of the building and then a chat about the process of the visit. The interviews follow and finally an example of teaching e.g. videoed teaching session, is reviewed.
A feedback session, outlining the findings, follows and any queries ironed out.
The registrar and trainer discuss the visit on their way back to the practice but then separately produce a report, giving an insight from their respective angles. The report is returned to those visited, they then comment on it and feedback to the visitors. Following this the document is amended and signed by all parties and then made available to who ever the trainers group feel appropriate.
The trainers welcomed the visit. They enjoyed the ability to see what others do, and also to have the backing and help from their peers in their own endeavours.
Charles Dean
Brad Cheek: