ABSTRACT

In developing a strategy to address cases of poor individual performance, many HAs clearly recognised that the focus of debate needed to encompass a broader perspective than simply the performance of an individual practitioner. The philosophy adopted by the University of Sheffield regional working group is typical of the approach adopted by many HAs regarding the assessment of General Practitioners (GP) performance. Within Sheffield, it was felt that the outcome of any procedures could be judged in terms of patient care, since the quality of service provision should improve as a result of a GP – whose performance was previously at the 'trailing edge' of acceptability – being given assistance/remedial action. Whilst the data gathered may take the form of soft data most HAs were looking to introduce clear standards and indicators against which performance could be assessed. The concerns raised regarding acceptable and appropriate indicators and the need to ensure credibility and widespread professional concurrence are also similar.