Doctor/360 feedback

360° Feedback, Disability, and Revalidation

This page was created to help understanding and confirmed by ChatGPT. It is not legal advice.

Background

The GMC requires doctors to collect colleague and patient feedback for revalidation.

• It does **not** require anonymous 360° feedback.
• Many organisations choose anonymous 360° tools, but this is a local policy choice.
• For disabled doctors, especially those with hidden disabilities, this can cause problems.

Risks Under the Equality Act

• Indirect discrimination: anonymous feedback may disadvantage disabled doctors.
• Direct discrimination: feedback that criticises disability-related adjustments.
• Harassment: comments on disability traits.
• Burden of proof: anonymity makes bias impossible to disprove.

Risks for Hidden Disabilities

• Misinterpretation of coping strategies.
• Amplification of unconscious bias.
• No chance to reply or correct misunderstandings.
• Groupthink or collusion in small teams.
• Discourages disclosure of disability.
• Psychological harm from anonymous criticism.
• Conflicts with GMC standards on fairness.

Inconsistent Practice

Appraisers sometimes insist on anonymous 360° feedback even when the Responsible Officer does not.

• Legally, responsibility still rests with the Designated Body and RO. - This inconsistency risks unfairness and potential discrimination.

Reasonable Adjustments

Possible alternatives: -

• Named feedback instead of anonymous.
• Supervisor reports, case reviews, patient outcome data.
• Training for appraisers on interpreting disability-related adjustments.
• Processes that are supportive, fair, and proportionate.

Conclusion

- GMC requires feedback, not anonymous 360°. - ROs and Designated Bodies must consider adjustments. - Insisting on anonymous 360° feedback without adjustments risks discrimination.

This page was created to help understanding and confirmed by ChatGPT. It is not legal advice.