Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systems to detect and minimise unwarranted variation in clinician practice are crucial to ensure increasingly multidisciplinary healthcare workforces are supported to practise to their full potential. Such systems are limited in English general practice settings, with implications for the efficiency and safety of care. AIM: To evaluate the benefits and limitations of a continuous, risk-based, consultation peer-review system used for 10 years by an out-of-hours general practice service in Bristol, UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study in South West England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with intervention users (clinicians, peer reviewers, and clinical management), analysed by inductive thematic analysis and integrated into a programme theory. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians were interviewed between September 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees indicated that the intervention supported clinician learning through improved peer feedback, highlighting learning needs and validating practice. It was compared favourably with existing structures of ensuring clinician competence, supporting standardisation of supervision, clinical governance, and learning culture. These benefits were potentially limited by intervention factors such as differential feedback quality between clinician groups, the efficiency of methods to identify learning needs, and limitations of assessments based on written clinical notes. Contextual factors such as clinician experience, motivation, and organisational learning culture influenced the perception of the intervention as a support or a stressor. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate the potential of continuous, risk-based, consultation peer review to support clinicians in an increasingly multidisciplinary general practice workforce to efficiently and safely practise to their full potential. The programme theory provides a theoretical basis to maximise the benefits and accommodate the potential limitations of this methodology.