The title of the GPSC article in the July/August issue of BCMJ [2015;57:246 [10]] caught my eye, and I thought I would read the article to gain a better understanding. Unfortunately, I came away with very little understanding because the language in the article is heavily loaded with bureaucratic terminology. I was hoping for a clear, simple explanation but instead came away with the too-common impression of a project filled with nebulous collaboration, embedded evaluations, and other vague notions. The article seems to be trying to create the impression of merit for the process described, while not giving clear details that would let the reader decide if merit is deserved.
--Jim Nugent, MD
Victoria