What is ACP 360?
ACP 360 is the Royal College of
Psychiatrists’ 360-degree feedback system. Its purpose is formative
- to enable personal development. It provides structured feedback
to psychiatrists in two of the GMC’s core domains – working
with colleagues and relating to patients.
ACP 360 covers eight domains that psychiatrists themselves have
identified as being important:
- Communication
- Availability
- Emotional intelligence
- Decision-making
- Relationships with service users
- Relationships with relatives/carers
- Relationships with other psychiatrists
- Relationships with their team
What is 360 degree
feedback?
360-degree feedback (sometimes
known as multi-source feedback) is a model of assessment which aims
to present more rounded feedback to an individual than the
traditional “top-down” approach where feedback is gathered only
from an individual’s line manager:
Feedback is gathered using
validated and reliable questionnaires that measure an individual’s
behaviour in certain areas. High quality feedback will only be
achieved if the instruments have good psychometric properties.
The psychometric properties of ACP
360 have been tested and the results were published in the
British
Journal of Psychiatry.
This method of gathering feedback
is gaining popularity in the health sector. This is both part of
the general movement towards better regulation and because it is
recognised that multi-source feedback is the best way of assessing
certain aspects of good medical practice as defined by the GMC.
Revalidation now requires psychiatrists to participate in an
independent appraisal such as ACP 360.

A survey of psychiatrists who have used ACP 360 found
that
75% found the results of the
assessments helpful
85% found the report clear
and easy to understand
90% agreed that the
instructions were easy to follow and that no training was required
to take part and stated that the report would form part of their
next appraisal
Although most psychiatrists in the survey had
only recently received their report, a substantial number had
already changed the way in which they interacted with their
colleagues and patients based on their results.