Skip to main content
Log in

Attitudes to peer review as a competence assurance structure — results of a survey of Irish physicians

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Medical Council in Ireland is currently implementing Competence Assurance Structures (CAS). Peer review has been proposed as a tool to measure physician competence.

Aims

To assess the attitudes of physicians working in the Irish healthcare system to a peer review programme of competence assurance priorto its implementation.

Methods

A postal survey was sent to all physicians in the Irish Medical Directory in November 2003. Nine questions were asked to gauge attitudes to peer review as a CA tool.The returned questionnaires were collated and data extracted based on responses.

Results

The response rate was 67%. The majority of respondents (92%) felt peer review would inform competence assurance in Ireland. Most physicians who were surveyed felt an on-site assessment (88%) every 5 years (87%) was the preferred method. Over 30% responded that there should be a financial incentive for completing a review, and 70% would pay to be assessed.The UK model of competence assurance was the model most physicians preferred for the Irish setting (42%).

Conclusion

The majority of physicians practising in Ireland would favour a peer review system of competence assurance.The financial implications, and structure, of such a system would need to be explored prior to implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Competence Assurance Structures-An Agenda for Implementation. Irish Medical Council, Dublin, March 2002.

  2. Fox RD, Mazmanian PE, Putnam RW, eds. Change and learning in the lives of physicians. New York: Praegar, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Finucane PM, Bourgeois-Law GA, Ineson SL et al. A comparison of performance assessment programs for medical practitioners in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.Acad Med. 2003;78(8):837–43. PMID: 12915380 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD000259. Review. PMID: 12917891 [PubMed -indexed forMEDLINE]

  5. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman A et al. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies.JAMA. 1995 6;274(9):700–5. PMID: 7650822 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Olcott C IV, Mitchell RS, Steinberg GK, Zarins CK. Institutional peer review can reduce the risk and cost of carotid endarterectomy.Arch Surg. 2000; 135(8):939–42. PMID: 10922256 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Balla M, Knothe B, Lancaster J, Prager S, Beatson J. Group peer review in psychiatry: the relationship to quality improvement and quality care.Aust N ZJ Psychiatry. 1996 Oct; 30(5):653–9. PMID: 8902172 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/assurance/default.asp

  9. McManus IC, Gordon D, Winder BC. Duties of a doctor: UK doctors and good medical practice.Qual Healthcare. 2000 Mar; 9(1):14–22. PMID: 10848365 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McManus IC, Winder BC, Gordon D. UK doctors’ attitudes to the General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures, 1997–99.Med Educ. 2001 Dec; 35 Suppl 1:60–9. PMID: 11895256 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chambers R, Bowyer S, Campbell I. Investigation into the attitudes of general practitioners in Staffordshire to medical audit.Qual Healthcare. 1996 Mar; 5(1):13–9. PMID: 10157267 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Norcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence.Aled Educ. 2003 Jun; 37(6):539–43. PMID: 12787377 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Margo CE. Peer and expert opinion and the reliability of implicit case review.Ophthalmology. 2002 Mar; 109(3):614–8. PMID: 11874771 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance.JAMA. 1993 Apr 7; 269(13):1655–60. PMID: 8240483 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewis M, Elwyn G, Wood F. Appraisal of family doctors: an evaluation study.Br J Gen Pract. 2003 Jun; 53(491): 454–60. PMID: 12939890 [PubMed — indexed for MEDLINE]

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter N. Actual CA cost 75 euro per doctor p.a., but real cost priceless, says Medical Council.Irish Medical News 2003; 20(33):1

    Google Scholar 

  17. CA Brown, CR Belfield, SJ Field. Cost effectiveness of continuing professional development in healthcare: a critical review of the evidence. BM/ 2002; 324:652–655 (16 March).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lock P, McElroy B, Mackenzie M. The hidden cost of clinical audit a questionnaire study of NHS staff. Health Policy. 2000 Apr;51(3):181–90. PMID: 10720687 [PubMed -indexed for MEDLINE]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Silke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moss, A.C., Dugal, T. & Silke, B. Attitudes to peer review as a competence assurance structure — results of a survey of Irish physicians. Ir J Med Sci 174, 43–46 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03169147

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03169147

Keywords

Navigation