Membership by Assessment of Performance: developing a method for assessing established general practitioners.

J Holden; J Wearne

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10750239

Membership by Assessment of Performance: developing a method for assessing established general practitioners.

J Holden·J Wearne

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Over 200 general practitioners (GPs) and others have contributed to the development of Membership by Assessment of Performance (MAP): a new scheme for assessing established GPs. By means of a Delphi consultation with a broad cross-section of the profession, a working conference, piloting with potential candidates, and repeated checking with reference panels, the assessment was developed within two years. We report the development of MAP, including the results of the Delphi consultation, which asked 'Which aspects of a general practitioners performance are important to assess?'.

Explore related subjects

Delphi Technique Educational Measurement Family Practice Humans Professional Competence Societies, Medical Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J Holden, J Wearne. 2000. Membership by Assessment of Performance: developing a method for assessing established general practitioners.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10750239/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2025

Results of a local modified Delphi consensus on use of plasma metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

Molecular tests without well-defined test performance characteristics are increasingly available for diagnosis of infectious diseases. These tests present a diagnostic stewardship challenge for institutions. We share the results of a local modified Delphi consensus undertaken to define appropriate scenarios for use of plasma metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

Delphi Technique↗

PubMed2007

Can we achieve international agreement on terminologies and definitions used to describe abnormalities of menstrual bleeding?

BACKGROUND: There is considerable worldwide confusion in the use of terminologies and definitions around the symptom of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), and these are leading increasingly to difficulties in setting up multinational clinical trials and in interpreting the results of studies undertaken in single centres. An international initiative was established to develop an agreement process to recommend clear, simple terminologies and definitions with the potential for wide acceptance. METHODS: After widespread consultation with relevant international and national organizations, journal editors and individuals, a modified Delphi process was developed to assess the current use of terminologies followed by a structured face-to-face meeting of 35 clinicians (mostly gynaecologists) and scientists in Washington. Focused small group discussions led to plenary assessment of concepts and recommendations using an electronic keypad voting system. RESULTS: There was almost universal agreement that poorly defined terms of classical origin used in differing ways in the English medical language should be discarded and that these should be replaced by simple, descriptive terms with clear definitions which have the potential to be understood by health professional and patient alike and which can be translated into most languages. The major recommendations were to replace terms such as menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, hypermenorrhoea and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Suggestions for potentially suitable replacement terms and definitions are made. CONCLUSIONS: A simple terminology has been recommended for the description and definition of symptoms and signs of AUB. This manuscript should be a living document and should be part of an ongoing process with international medical and community debate. Classification of causes, investigations and cultural and quality of life issues should be part of the ongoing process.

Delphi Technique↗

PubMed2006

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT*.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal are likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Delphi Technique↗