Feedback is most useful when the collection is fair, the sample fits the work and the doctor reflects on the message. Agree practical difficulties early rather than collecting only convenient or favourable responses.
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
- Plan patient and colleague feedback for a varied scope.
- Identify selection bias and accessibility barriers.
- Translate feedback into proportionate development actions.
Plan the formal exercises within the cycle
GMC: patient and service-user feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
GMC: colleague feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
The GMC requires formal solicited patient feedback at least once per revalidation cycle and colleague feedback at least once per cycle. Relevant informal feedback also supports annual reflection. Confirm the timing and method with your appraisal team. A survey collected too late to discuss or act on may leave avoidable difficulties near the recommendation date.
Create a calendar entry for agreeing the method, collecting feedback, receiving the report and discussing it. These are separate tasks. If your next role will make collection more difficult, ask whether the current setting provides a better opportunity. Do not assume that a satisfactory survey from an earlier cycle automatically fulfils the current cycle’s requirement.
Make patient feedback suitable for the people you serve
GMC: patient and service-user feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
The method should fit the patients, services and setting. Consider language, disability, communication needs and whether a patient can appropriately be asked at that time. Where patients cannot provide feedback even with adjustments, meaningful feedback from representatives may be appropriate. The current GMC guidance explains alternatives and the need to agree difficulties with the responsible officer or suitable person.
For example, a service caring for people with communication difficulties should not simply exclude them to improve response rates. Discuss an accessible approach and how the report will distinguish patient and representative perspectives. The educational planner here asks about the method and coverage; it does not collect real patient responses or generate an official feedback report.
Protect the collection process from bias
GMC: patient and service-user feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
Use the approved local or independent administration route. Avoid selecting only patients likely to praise you or personally collating sensitive responses. Explain the purpose and voluntary nature of the exercise through the agreed process. Follow the tool’s instructions and discuss small samples or other difficulties rather than inventing a universal minimum response number.
A useful planning question is whether a colleague could describe how participants were approached without relying on your preference for particular respondents. Consecutive or otherwise appropriately selected participants can reduce cherry-picking. Practical constraints may still affect the sample; record them. A limited report can support learning, but it should not be described as representative without considering who was missing.
Seek colleagues who know different parts of your work
GMC: colleague feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
Colleague feedback should draw impartially from the whole scope and include a range of roles, including people who are not doctors. Validated, independently administered questionnaires are preferred where possible, with alternatives agreed by the responsible officer or suitable person. A collection made only from close friends or one professional group may miss important aspects of practice.
Map roles rather than naming individuals in the website tool: nursing colleagues, administrative staff, supervisors, peers, learners or managers as relevant. Think about who sees your reliability, teamwork and response to difficulty, as well as your technical work. Feedback from challenging working relationships can be informative, but it should be collected through a fair process that protects respondents.
Read the report with context and curiosity
GMC: colleague feedback ↗
UK · Relevant requirements and explanatory sections · Substantive check: 2026-09-09. Reviewed for the specific appraisal teaching; not certification of every linked statement.
Begin with the overall pattern, then examine particular comments in context. Compare self-assessment with external perspectives. A single negative comment may be important without defining your whole practice; a favourable average does not erase a recurring concern. Ask what the evidence can support and what further discussion or observation would help.
Avoid trying to identify an anonymous respondent or arguing against every uncomfortable point. For an original example, feedback may describe a doctor as available but difficult to approach when busy. The next step might be to explore how interruptions are handled and test clearer signposting. The purpose is to improve the interaction, not to prove that the respondent misunderstood the workload.
Respond proportionately and review the effect
Identify strengths to maintain and one or more changes worth testing. Translate a broad theme into observable behaviour and a review point. Discuss concerns with the appraiser and use the appropriate support route if feedback raises a serious issue. A development plan should be proportionate; it need not become a punitive list of every unfavourable sentence.
Record what you changed, what support was needed and how you will learn whether it helped. If you believe the process was unfair or the report contains a factual error, raise that through the administrator or appraisal lead while still considering any useful learning. Process concerns and reflective engagement can be addressed together without pretending either is irrelevant.
Plan fair collection and useful reflection
Formal patient and colleague feedback are each normally required at least once in the revalidation cycle. Discuss appropriate alternatives with the responsible-officer team if your practice needs a different approach; do not simply omit a category.
Use neutral planning notes only. Do not enter names, GMC numbers, identifiable cases, health details or confidential employer information. Entries stay in this open page, are not saved automatically and are lost when you leave or reload. Download only on a trusted device and store the file appropriately.
Consider the range of people receiving your service, appropriate accessible methods and how selection bias will be reduced. Avoid cherry-picking positive respondents.
Confirm the proposed method and any alternative arrangements before collecting formal feedback.
Whose perspective is missing from the feedback you currently receive?
Three takeaways
- 1Plan fair and accessible collection.
- 2Interpret patterns in context.
- 3Test a proportionate response.
Check your understanding
Six questions on Patient and colleague feedback: collect fairly and use thoughtfully test process and practical judgement. This is educational: it does not assess your health, evidence sufficiency or decide a legal issue.
Recommended workbooks
Use neutral planning notes and keep completed workbooks on a trusted device. Do not enter identifiable cases or confidential material.
Official and professional guidance
Confirm current GMC requirements and the approved arrangements for your designated body and nation.