PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L H Southgate

Publications and source records attributed to L H Southgate.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The relationship between competence and performance: implications for assessing practice performance.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe current views of the relationship between competence and performance and to delineate some of the implications of the distinctions between the two areas for the purpose of assessing doctors in practice. METHODS: During a 2-day closed session, the authors, using their wide experiences in this domain, defined the problem and the context, discussed the content and set up a new model. This was developed further by e-mail correspondence over a 6-month period. RESULTS: Competency-based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in testing situations, while performance-based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in practice. The distinction between competency-based and performance-based methods leads to a three-stage model for assessing doctors in practice. The first component of the model proposed is a screening test that would identify doctors at risk. Practitioners who 'pass' the screen would move on to a continuous quality improvement process aimed at raising the general level of performance. Practitioners deemed to be at risk would undergo a more detailed assessment process focused on rigorous testing, with poor performers targeted for remediation or removal from practice. CONCLUSION: We propose a new model, designated the Cambridge Model, which extends and refines Miller's pyramid. It inverts his pyramid, focuses exclusively on the top two tiers, and identifies performance as a product of competence, the influences of the individual (e.g. health, relationships), and the influences of the system (e.g. facilities, practice time). The model provides a basis for understanding and designing assessments of practice performance.

Clinical Competence↗

The reproducibility of assessing radiological reporting: studies from the development of the General Medical Council's Performance Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reproducibility of peer ratings of consultant radiologists' reports, as part of the new General Medical Council (GMC) Performance Procedures. DESIGN: An evaluation protocol was piloted, used in a blocked, balanced, randomized generalizability analysis with three blocks of three judges (raters), each rating 30 reports from 10 radiologists, and re-rated to estimate intrarater reliability with conventional statistics (kappa). SETTING: Rating was performed at the Royal College of Radiologists. Volunteers were sampled from 23 departments of radiology in university teaching and district general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally drawn non-random sample of 30 consultant radiologists contributing a total of 900 reports. Three trained and six non-trained judges were used in the rating analysis. RESULTS: A protocol was generated that was usable by judges. Generalizable results would be obtained with not less than three judges all rating the same 60 reports from a radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Any assessment of performance of technical abilities in this field will need to use multiple assessors, basing judgements on an adequate sample of reports.

Clinical Competence↗