Search

The assessment of the performance of doctors in practice is becoming more widely accepted. While there are many potential purposes for such assessments, sometimes the consequences of the assessments will be 'high stakes'. In these circumstances, any of the many elements of the assessment programme may potentially be challenged. These assessment programmes therefore need to be robust, fair and defensible, taken from the perspectives of consumer, assessee and assessor. In order to inform the design of defensible programmes for assessing practice performance, a group of education researchers at the 10th Cambridge Conference adopted a project management approach to designing practice performance assessment programmes. This paper describes issues to consider in the articulation of the purposes and outcomes of the assessment, planning the programme, the administrative processes involved, including communication and preparation of assessees. Examples of key questions to be answered are provided, but further work is needed to test validity.

Background: The use of portfolios can potentially provide flexibility in the summative assessment of doctors in practice. An assessment system should reflect and reinforce the active and planned professional development goals of individual doctors. This paper discusses some of the issues involved in developing such a system., Results: To provide a complete picture of an individual doctor's practice, we suggest that a portfolio should encompass: (1) evidence covering all three domains of patient care, personal development and context management; (2) evidence that the person continuously undertakes critical assessment of their own performance, identifies and prioritises areas requiring enhanced performance and takes action to improve them as appropriate; (3) evidence that has been generated by assessments that are acceptably reliable, and (4) evidence which, taken in its entirety, is sufficient, valid, current and authentic. We include a suggested outline of the components of such a portfolio and suggest some criteria to determine the effectiveness of learning cycles. Portfolio reliability and validity requires sufficient evidence on which to base a judgement combined with reliable processes., Conclusion: Carefully specified portfolios can contribute to a system that ensures all doctors take an active part in identifying and meeting their own learning needs. Such a system, if properly implemented, would have a greatly beneficial impact on continuous quality improvement for the profession in general.