Guide · 7 min read · Updated 2026-06-12

OPPE and FPPE: a practical guide for medical staff

Ongoing and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation are accreditation staples. Here is how they work — and where peer feedback fits.

What OPPE and FPPE are

OPPE (Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation) is the routine, continuous monitoring of a privileged provider's performance, summarized periodically (commonly every 6–12 months) to inform decisions about continuing privileges. FPPE (Focused Professional Practice Evaluation) is time-limited, focused evaluation — used for newly privileged providers, new privileges, or when a specific concern is identified. Both are expectations of accreditors such as The Joint Commission.

The six general competencies

OPPE is typically organized around the six ACGME/ABMS general competencies:

• Patient care
• Medical/clinical knowledge
• Practice-based learning and improvement
• Interpersonal and communication skills
• Professionalism
• Systems-based practice

The last two — interpersonal/communication skills and professionalism — are exactly the behaviors that objective metrics struggle to capture and that multi-source feedback is designed to measure.

Where the data comes from

A balanced OPPE pulls from several data streams: quality and safety metrics, utilization and documentation data, case review, and peer and multi-source feedback for the behavioral competencies. No single source covers all six competencies, which is why feedback from colleagues is a recognized input rather than an optional extra.

How multi-source feedback fits

Structured, anonymous peer feedback gives the medical-staff office defensible signal on communication and professionalism that chart abstraction cannot. Used well, it is gathered on a regular cadence, reported in aggregate above a minimum-response threshold, and reviewed alongside the other OPPE data.

A practical caution: anonymous feedback feeding evaluation or adverse action carries due-process and discoverability considerations. Treat MSF as one input into a fair process, document how it is used, and align with your medical-staff bylaws and counsel.

Common pitfalls

• Too few reviewers, so results are noisy or anonymity is compromised.
• One-and-done, with no re-measurement to show whether coaching worked.
• Mixing formative and summative without telling providers which is which.
• No closed loop between findings and a documented improvement plan.

Frequently asked questions