Psychiatric Bulletin (2008) 32: 214-217. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.107.018135
© 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data supplement
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hegde, R.
Right arrow Articles by Hughson, A.V. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hegde, R.
Right arrow Articles by Hughson, A.V. M.

Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal

Rekha Hegde, Specialist Registrar (now Consultant) in Old Age Psychiatry and A.V. Mark Hughson, Consultant in General Adult Psychiatry

Leverndale Hospital, 510 Crookston Road, Glasgow G53 7TU, email: mark.hughson{at}which.net

Declaration of interest

None.

AIMS AND METHOD

A postal survey was conducted to gauge opinion of consultant psychiatrists in the west of Scotland with regard to consultant appraisal.

RESULTS

We received 158 responses to our survey (a response rate of 77%). The results showed mixed feelings about appraisal – for example, its purpose was felt to be about the development of consultants (72%) rather than the protection of patients (53%). Practical problems were highlighted, like the provision of accurate data and the amount of time spent on the preparation for appraisal.

Participation in 360-degree appraisal was scant, and no consensus on the use of outcome measures was reached.

IMPLICATIONS

More work needs to be done on the appraisal process for it to gain the full confidence of the profession.