Patient and Colleague Feedback Planner
HTML edition updated 9 September 2026. This is an educational planning aid, not an official application form or individual advice.
Download the print-layout PDF · Accessibility information
Use brief, non-identifiable notes only. Do not enter patient, colleague, employer-confidential, legal-case or personal financial details. Nothing entered here is sent to the publication or saved automatically. Closing or reloading the page clears entries. Use a trusted device and print only material you can store safely.
Purpose and boundaries
Plan formal feedback that is fair, appropriate to your practice and useful for learning. Keep raw responses in the approved process. This workbook is not a feedback questionnaire, a scoring system or a substitute for agreement about an alternative method.
Use neutral planning notes. Do not record names, GMC numbers, identifiable cases, health details, confidential employer material or private document links here. The website is not an approved appraisal record. Entries in the webpage stay in the open page and are not saved automatically. Store completed downloads securely and transfer appropriate information to your approved system.
Worked example: a fictional planning situation
A doctor works in a service where a standard clinic questionnaire does not fit all recipients of care. They discuss the scope and an accessible collection method with the appraisal team, arrange independent administration and avoid selecting only people likely to be positive. When the report arrives, they examine themes and context with the appraiser. A small number of comments prompts thoughtful inquiry, not a claim that every respondent represents the entire service.
1. Confirm timing and purpose
Formal patient or service-user feedback and colleague feedback are each normally required at least once in the revalidation cycle. Informal feedback can inform ongoing learning. Check what has already been completed and plan early enough to discuss the result; do not assume both exercises must be repeated every year.
2. Map the relevant perspectives
Consider the roles, settings and groups across your scope. Patient feedback should reflect those receiving your service; colleague feedback should include an appropriate range of professional roles and working relationships. Identify perspectives likely to be missed by an easy convenience sample.
3. Agree a suitable method
Use the approved or agreed approach, with independent administration where appropriate. Discuss alternatives with the responsible-officer team if usual methods do not fit. Do not create a personal exemption, invent a universal respondent quota or assume that a self-selected testimonial collection is equivalent.
4. Plan accessibility and fairness
Consider language, communication needs, digital exclusion, timing, privacy and voluntary participation. Avoid pressure and cherry-picking. The method should make it reasonably possible for relevant people to respond, including those who may not have an entirely positive experience.
5. Interpret with context
Read the overall pattern, differences, limitations and unexpected findings. Discuss difficult feedback without rushing to identify or blame a respondent. A comment may identify a useful question without proving a general conclusion. Seek proper support if a serious concern requires a separate process.
6. Respond and review
Choose a proportionate development response and discuss how it can be reviewed. Preserve useful practice as well as changing what needs improvement. Do not promise a positive future score or use appraisal feedback as a substitute for handling a formal complaint.
Review the plan before using it
Check that the notes describe what is known, what remains uncertain and what someone still needs to agree. A completed field does not prove approval, competence or revalidation readiness. Keep official correspondence and actual deadlines separate from illustrative planning dates. Seek appropriate advice where an individual decision or a licence may be affected.
Sources and related learning
Editorial source review: 9 September 2026. The links below are primary sources; publication dates vary. Current official guidance and approved local arrangements take priority. This is independent education, not a GMC-endorsed form or individual advice.