['The ability to consult effectively is key to the delivery of quality patient care. External peer review of consultations has been available to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the west of Scotland for several years. Pharmacists are expected to provide increasingly  complex advice for patients. This study describes the development and first steps in the evaluation of a generic tool to be used to inform feedback about both GP and pharmacist consultations with patients.', "The tool was developed by a small group of GPs and tested for validity  using a content validity inventory. An item correlation pilot (ICP) was carried out. Three experienced reviewers reviewed and scored three consultations in each of six GP tapes, a further three reviewers reviewed and scored three consultations in each of four pharmacists' tapes. The results  underwent statistical analysis.", 'Pharmacists do not examine patients and so two similar instruments were developed, whereby two questions pertinent to patient examination were omitted from the pharmacist instrument. The content validity inventory demonstrated aspects of  face validity and content validity of instruments. Statistical analysis of GP tapes suggested that the instrument could discriminate between GP consultations. Skills demonstrated by pharmacists were given lower scores, were less consistent than the GPs and the instrument did not discriminate  between those performing at different levels.'] Do pilot study to develop and test a generic peer feedback instrument to review videotaped consultations in primary care?