A GMC colleague feedback form is usually part of a doctor’s supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: it gathers structured feedback from people who work with them. The GMC does not provide one universal blank form for every doctor, so use the template below as a planning or recording aid and check that your appraisal arrangements accept the feedback method you choose.
What “GMC colleague feedback” means
The General Medical Council (GMC) regulates doctors in the UK. In appraisal and revalidation, colleague feedback gives a doctor a chance to consider how colleagues experience their professional work, communication, teamwork and conduct. It is commonly gathered through a structured, multi-source feedback process rather than by asking one or two hand-picked colleagues for informal comments.
Feedback is supporting information for reflection; it is not a substitute for clinical supervision, a formal performance review, a complaint investigation or an employer’s governance process. A form may help organise the process, but simply collecting completed forms does not establish that the feedback method meets local requirements or is suitable for appraisal.
The GMC’s broad expectation is that doctors seek and reflect on feedback from colleagues as part of professional practice. The exact process, timing and accepted tools may depend on the doctor’s designated body, responsible officer, employer and appraisal arrangements. Confirm those details before inviting respondents.
Why there is no single universal GMC form
Doctors work in different settings, with different teams and responsibilities. A hospital doctor, a GP, a locum and a doctor working mainly in a non-clinical role may need different groups of colleagues to give a meaningful picture of their work. A single form cannot automatically fit every context, and a locally created questionnaire should not be described as GMC-approved unless that status has been verified.
Many appraisal systems use an established colleague-feedback tool with a defined process for invitations, response collection, confidentiality and reporting. Those features matter: the quality of the process depends not only on the questions, but also on who is asked, how responses are gathered and how results are interpreted. Before using a generic template, ask your appraiser or appraisal office whether an approved or locally accepted tool is required.
How to choose an appropriate feedback process
Choose a method that is appropriate to your scope of work and accepted by your appraisal arrangements. A useful process should gather considered feedback from a suitable range of people who have worked with you closely enough to comment. Depending on the role, this might include medical colleagues, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative staff, managers or other relevant coworkers. Do not include people merely to reach a number if they cannot give informed feedback.
- Check local requirements first. Ask which tool, collection method and reporting format your appraisal system accepts.
- Consider the range of respondents. Include relevant professional roles and working relationships, not only close peers or people likely to give favourable comments.
- Protect confidentiality. Find out how responses are collected, who can see them and whether individual comments may be identifiable.
- Use a suitable timeframe. Invite people who have recent, meaningful experience of your work, while following the timing set by your appraisal arrangements.
- Plan for reflection. Allow time to consider themes, strengths, differences in perspective and any practical actions before appraisal.
There is no universally appropriate respondent count to insert into a home-made form. Follow the instructions for the chosen tool and local process rather than assuming that a particular number of responses will be sufficient.
GMC colleague feedback form template
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Doctor’s name | |
| Role and work setting | |
| Feedback period | |
| Appraisal or revalidation context | |
| Feedback method or tool used | |
| Who was invited, by role | |
| How invitations and responses were managed | |
| How confidentiality was explained | |
| Main themes received | |
| Strengths identified | |
| Areas to reflect on or improve | |
| Doctor’s reflection | |
| Actions, support or follow-up | |
| Date discussed with appraiser |
How to use the template responsibly
This is a record-keeping framework, not a respondent questionnaire and not a validated feedback instrument. Use it to document the process and your reflection after collecting feedback through a method accepted by your appraisal arrangements. If those arrangements require a particular survey or reporting system, use that instead of substituting this table.
When completing the record, describe the process accurately. For example, state the roles invited rather than listing names if the reporting process is intended to preserve anonymity. Summarise themes without exposing a respondent’s identity or including patient-identifiable information. Keep any underlying records only in accordance with the relevant local policies and data-handling instructions.
In your reflection, distinguish what respondents said from your interpretation. A helpful account might note a recurring strength, a theme that surprised you, how the feedback compares with other evidence, and what you will do next. If feedback raises a serious safety or conduct concern, do not treat an appraisal summary as the route for urgent reporting; follow the appropriate workplace or professional reporting process.
Short fictional sample
Sample only — fictional details: Dr Rowan Example, a fictional clinician at North Quay Practice, records that a locally accepted colleague-feedback process was completed during the review period. Respondents from several relevant roles described Dr Example as approachable and clear when coordinating routine work. A recurring suggestion was to make handovers more structured during busy sessions. Dr Example’s reflection is to trial a consistent handover checklist with the team and review whether it improves clarity. This example illustrates a concise reflection; it does not establish that any particular tool or process will meet an individual doctor’s requirements.
Confidentiality, fairness and useful feedback
Colleagues are more likely to give candid, useful feedback when they understand the purpose of the exercise and how their responses will be handled. Explain whether responses are anonymous, confidential or reported in another way. These terms are not interchangeable: anonymity means a response cannot reasonably be linked to its author, while confidentiality generally means access is restricted but identity may still be known to the process administrator. Do not promise anonymity unless the chosen process can genuinely provide it.
Feedback should relate to observed work and be expressed respectfully. A useful comment identifies a behaviour and its effect, rather than making a broad personal judgement. For example, “The written handover included clear actions” is more actionable than “good colleague.” Similarly, a concern should be specific enough to support reflection, without including confidential patient details or material unrelated to professional practice.
Fairness also means considering the limits of the evidence. A small or unbalanced group may not represent the full range of a doctor’s work. One isolated comment should not automatically be treated as a settled conclusion, but neither should uncomfortable feedback be dismissed simply because it is unwelcome. Consider patterns, context and other information, and discuss uncertainty with the appraiser where appropriate.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Calling a generic form “GMC-approved.” A template is not endorsed merely because it is used for a GMC-related purpose.
- Collecting only favourable views. A process should seek an appropriate range of perspectives rather than curate praise.
- Confusing feedback with a complaint process. Colleague feedback is reflective supporting information, not a replacement for formal routes to raise concerns.
- Making promises about anonymity. Confirm how the chosen tool handles identity and reporting before describing the process to respondents.
- Submitting comments without reflection. Appraisal is more useful when the doctor explains what the feedback means for their practice and any next steps.
- Including identifiable patient information. Keep summaries focused on professional themes and follow local information-handling rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the GMC provide a colleague feedback form?
The GMC sets professional expectations around feedback and reflection, but it does not supply one universal blank form for every doctor. Check your designated body, employer or appraisal office for the process and tools they accept.
Can I use this template for my revalidation appraisal?
You can use it to organise notes about the feedback process and your reflection. It is not a validated respondent survey, so confirm that the method used to collect the actual feedback meets your local appraisal requirements.
How often should a doctor collect colleague feedback?
Follow current GMC guidance and the instructions of your appraisal and revalidation arrangements. Do not rely on an assumed interval from a generic template; confirm the timing applicable to your circumstances with your appraisal office or responsible officer.
Who should be asked to provide feedback?
Invite colleagues with relevant, recent experience of your work and aim for a suitable range of roles and perspectives. The appropriate group depends on your practice, and the chosen tool or local process may give more specific instructions.
Is colleague feedback anonymous?
Not necessarily. Whether responses are anonymous, confidential or identifiable depends on the collection method and reporting process. Explain the actual arrangements to respondents and never promise anonymity without checking how the system works.
What should I do if feedback raises a serious concern?
Do not rely on a routine feedback form or appraisal reflection to handle an urgent risk. Use the relevant workplace or professional reporting route, following local procedures; seek appropriate support if you are unsure which route applies.