Patient and Colleague Feedback

You are normally expected to complete formal patient feedback and formal colleague feedback at least once during each revalidation cycle, usually five years. You do not need to complete either exercise at every annual appraisal. What matters is collecting feedback through a credible process, reflecting on what it says and discussing it at appraisal.

For the commonly used GMC-style questionnaires, 34 patient responses and 15 colleague responses are useful planning targets. Check the requirements of your chosen tool and responsible officer, as sample sizes and arrangements may differ.

As an appraiser, I would not regard the absence of formal feedback in a particular appraisal year as a problem on its own. Plenty of doctors undertake their feedback exercises in one or two years of the cycle and discuss them in their annual appraisals. However, in the year or two before revalidation, I will usually ask how those exercises are progressing.

If feedback is outstanding, a sensible Personal Development Plan (PDP) objective is to complete the patient or colleague exercise ahead of the next appraisal or revalidation date. We can then revisit it at the following appraisal. This is a normal, supportive part of appraisal planning.

Formal feedback should be structured, reasonably representative and gathered through a confidential, impartial process. GMC questionnaires can be used, but they are not the only option. An appropriate established feedback platform is often easier because it handles invitations, collection and reporting.

A spreadsheet containing questions you have designed yourself is much less convincing. It is difficult to show that the questions were appropriate or that the respondents felt able to answer freely. Similarly, a handful of thank-you emails, although helpful as supporting information, does not replace a formal feedback exercise.

A feedback report shows the results. Your reflection explains what they mean for your practice. The examples below show how to bring the two together.

“I was pleased that patients and colleagues were positive about my communication and teamwork. I had rated myself a little lower, so it was reassuring to see their feedback. A few colleagues suggested I could get more involved in audit and governance work. I agree that would be useful, and I plan to join a local project over the next few months.”

That is enough. It says what went well, picks up a useful suggestion and explains what the doctor will do next. You do not need to invent a problem just because the feedback is positive.

Upload the feedback report, ideally with the number of responses, scores and comments. Take out any details that could identify patients or colleagues.

The simplest approach is to upload the feedback report and add a short reflection. Mention the main strengths, anything that surprised you, and one or two things you might improve. If a clear action comes out of it, you can add that to your PDP.

One thing to check: 22 patient responses and a score of 5.8/6 look good, but you should still check whether you collected enough responses for your chosen feedback tool. A great average score does not replace a proper collection process.

Choose GMC questionnaires or an established formal tool with an appropriate confidential collection process.

Complete a coherent patient exercise and a coherent colleague exercise, with meaningful summary reporting.

Invite an impartial cross-section of people who actually work with you.

Add a brief reflection comparing your expectations with the outcomes and addressing any themes.

Use an appraisal discussion and PDP goal to plan the exercise well ahead of revalidation.

Doctors who do not have direct patient contact may be able to seek feedback from others who receive their medical services, such as learners, clients or professional service users. If meaningful patient or equivalent feedback genuinely cannot be obtained, discuss the approach with your Responsible Officer or Suitable Person rather than simply leaving the section blank.

No. The usual expectation is formal patient feedback and formal colleague feedback during each revalidation cycle, not both at every annual appraisal.

No. A suitable established tool or platform may be appropriate. The important considerations are a sound questionnaire, fair selection, confidentiality and a meaningful report.

They are widely used practical targets associated with GMC questionnaire research, but are not universal fixed minimums. Check what is appropriate for your chosen method and provider.

Not necessarily. What matters is the nature and significance of the feedback, whether it fits a broader pattern, and how you reflect and respond. Significant concerns should not be ignored.

Yes, but it can be brief and natural. Recognise strengths, compare feedback with your expectations and identify any relevant learning without inventing concerns.

Complete both formal exercises within your revalidation cycle, use a credible process, aim for enough responses to form a meaningful picture, and engage thoughtfully with the results. That is what I look for as an appraiser: evidence of a genuine feedback exercise and insight into your practice, not elaborate paperwork.