The approach is feasible, has been implemented and has stood legal challenge. The assessors judge and report all the evidence they collect and may not select from it. All their judgements are included and the voice of the lay assessor is preserved. Taken together, the output from both phases forms an important basis for remediation and training should it be required.

Background Modernization of medical regulation has included the introduction of the Professional Performance Procedures by the UK General Medical Council in 1995. The Council now has the power to assess any registered practitioner whose performance may be seriously deficient, thus calling registration (licensure) into question. Problems arising from ill health or conduct are dealt with under separate programmes. Methods This paper describes the development of the assessment programmes within the overall policy framework determined by the Council. Peer review of performance in the workplace (Phase 1) is followed by tests of competence (Phase 2) to reflect the relationship between clinical competence and performance. The theoretical and research basis for the approach are presented, and the relationship between the qualitative methods in Phase 1 and the quantitative methods in Phase 2 explored. Conclusions The approach is feasible, has been implemented and has stood legal challenge. The assessors judge and report all the evidence they collect and may not select from it. All their judgements are included and the voice of the lay assessor is preserved. Taken together, the output from both phases forms an important basis for remediation and training should it be required.

The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor’s practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor’s medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non‐clinicians; a tour of the doctor’s workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor’s speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700–1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness.

The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor's practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor's medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor's workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor's speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700-1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness.

No abstract