I'm sorry for the delay because I was away from the computer when you responded.
I asked about the analysis of your peers because there are two approaches to performing such analysis and feedback of staff. There can be an analysis compared to minimum standards of performance, in which most of the analyses of various staff are unremarkable. Or the analysis can be done in the context of finding areas for improvement in all staff, in an effort to coach the staff to ever increasing levels of performance, in which most of the analyses would note areas for improvement.
If you are being called to a meeting to discuss competency, then that would indicate that it is likely the former - that the analysis is in comparison to minimum standards.
If this occurs in the context that the analysis is in comparison to minimum standards, then this analysis would be worrisome, as it notes several areas of deficiencies (thorough knowledge of patients, coordination of care, and failure to meet documentation standards). It also notes one area in which a prior issue has improved.
Therefore, the first impression is that this would indicate significant concerns from the perspective of your supervisor, so they will likely implement some form of intervention, such a the development a corrective action plan to improve these areas of concern.
If you have any further questions, please let me know.