Dataset Information

Clinical excellence: evidence on the assessment of senior doctors' applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards. Analysis of complete national data set.

ABSTRACT: To inform the rational deployment of assessor resource in the evaluation of applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA).ACCEA are responsible for a scheme to financially reward senior doctors in England and Wales who are assessed to be working over and above the standard expected of their role.Anonymised applications of consultants and senior academic GPs for awards were considered by members of 14 regional subcommittees and 2 national assessing committees during the 2014-2015 round of applications.It involved secondary analysis of complete anonymised national data set.We analysed scores for each of 1916 applications for a clinical excellence award across 4 levels of award. Scores were provided by members of 16 subcommittees. We assessed the reliability of assessments and described the variance in the assessment of scores.Members of regional subcommittees assessed 1529 new applications and 387 renewal applications. Average scores increased with the level of application being made. On average, applications were assessed by 9.5 assessors. The highest contributions to the variance in individual assessors' assessments of applications were attributable to assessors or to residual variance. The applicant accounted for around a quarter of the variance in scores for new bronze applications, with this proportion decreasing for higher award levels. Reliability in excess of 0.7 can be attained where 4 assessors score bronze applications, with twice as many assessors being required for higher levels of application.Assessment processes pertaining in the competitive allocation of public funds need to be credible and efficient. The present arrangements for assessing and scoring applications are defensible, depending on the level of reliability judged to be required in the assessment process. Some relatively minor reconfiguration in approaches to scoring might usefully be considered in future rounds of assessment.

SUBMITTER: Campbell JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4893866 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical experience has traditionally been highly valued in medical education and clinical healthcare. On account of its multi-faceted nature, clinical experience is mostly difficult to articulate, and is mainly expressed in clinical situations as professional approaches. Due to retirement, hospitals in Scandinavia will soon face a substantial decrease in the number of senior specialist doctors, and it has been discussed whether healthcare will suffer an immense loss of experienced-based knowledge when this senior group leaves the organization. Both senior specialists and junior colleagues are often involved in clinical education, but the way in which these two groups vary in professional approaches and contributions to clinical education has not been so well described. Cognitive psychology has contributed to the understanding of how experience may influence professional approaches, but such studies have not included the effect of differences in position and responsibilities that junior and senior doctors hold in clinical healthcare. In the light of the discussion above, it is essential to describe the professional approaches of senior doctors in relation to those of their junior colleagues. This study therefore aims to describe and compare the professional approaches of junior and senior doctors when making clinical judgements.MethodsCritical incident technique was used in interviews with nine senior doctors and nine junior doctors in internal medicine. The interviews were subjected to qualitative content analysis.ResultSenior and junior doctors expressed a variety of professional approaches in clinical judgement as follows: use of theoretical knowledge, use of prior experience of cases and courses of events, use of ethical and moral values, meeting and communicating with the patient, focusing on available information, relying on their own ability, getting support and guidance from others and being directed by the organization.ConclusionThe most prominent varieties of professional approaches were seen in use of knowledge and work-related experience. Senior doctors know how the organization has worked in the past and have acquired techniques with respect to long-term decisions and their consequences. Junior doctors, on the other hand, have developed techniques and expertise for making decisions based on a restricted amount of information, in relation to patients' wellbeing as well as organizational opportunities and constraints. This study contributes to medical education by elucidating the variation in professional approaches among junior and senior doctors, which can be used as a basis for discussion about clinical judgement, in both pre-clinical and clinical education. Further research is required to explain how these professional approaches are expressed and used in clinical education.

Project description:Summary This report compiles and summarizes all recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of meningococcal vaccines in the United States. As a comprehensive summary and update of previously published recommendations, it replaces all previously published reports and policy notes. This report also contains new recommendations for administration of booster doses of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine for persons at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease. These guidelines will be updated as needed on the basis of availability of new data or licensure of new meningococcal vaccines. ACIP recommends routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years, with a booster dose at age 16 years. ACIP also recommends routine vaccination with MenACWY for persons aged ?2 months at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor (e.g., eculizumab [Soliris] or ravulizumab [Ultomiris]); persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection; microbiologists routinely exposed to isolates of Neisseria meningitidis; persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y; persons who travel to or live in areas in which meningococcal disease is hyperendemic or epidemic; unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated first-year college students living in residence halls; and military recruits. ACIP recommends MenACWY booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends routine use of MenB vaccine series among persons aged ?10 years who are at increased risk for serogroup B meningococcal disease, including persons who have persistent complement component deficiencies; persons receiving a complement inhibitor; persons who have anatomic or functional asplenia; microbiologists who are routinely exposed to isolates of N. meningitidis; and persons identified to be at increased risk because of a meningococcal disease outbreak caused by serogroup B. ACIP recommends MenB booster doses for previously vaccinated persons who become or remain at increased risk. In addition, ACIP recommends a MenB series for adolescents and young adults aged 16–23 years on the basis of shared clinical decision-making to provide short-term protection against disease caused by most strains of serogroup B N. meningitidis.

Dataset Information

Clinical excellence: evidence on the assessment of senior doctors' applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards. Analysis of complete national data set.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets