The GMC is to simplify and streamline its revalidation proposals following a consultation process.
During the consultation, which ran from March to June, the GMC received over 940 written responses from doctors, employers and patients.
It said a key theme was the importance of ensuring that revalidation is as streamlined, simple and proportionate as possible. Many of those who responded emphasised that revalidation must contribute to the quality of care yet be cost effective.
In June, the new health secretary told the GMC to delay the roll out of revalidation for another year until the pilot studies have been properly assessed.
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, said: “We are committed to reviewing our proposals in the light of the responses and feedback from some of the early pilots.
“We share the view of many of those who took part in our consultation that revalidation must add value for both patients and doctors and must be workable in the pressured and busy environments in which most doctors work.”
In May, the BMA told the GMC consultation that it had no confidence in revalidation.
The BMA’s key concerns include uncertainties over cost; the complexity of the royal colleges’ specialist standards to re-certify doctors; and, the role of the royal colleges in sitting on revalidation panels and effectively regulating their members.
Commenting on the streamlining, a BMA spokesperson said: “The BMA is pleased the GMC has acknowledged that simplification of the revalidation proposals are required. This was a recurring theme throughout the BMA’s response.
“In particular, the GMC need to consider the specialist standards to ensure the process is fair, proportionate and workable. Given the extension to the pilots, there is now the opportunity to refine and develop a simplified system which can confirm a doctor’s fitness to practise whilst at the same time ensuring that time is not taken away from patient care.”
Read a blog on revalidation.
Tags: GMC, Revalidation
The current revalidation /appraisal process for hospital doctors is little more than a paper exercise with a modest amount of box ticking. It is unfunded and has no clear objectives. It wastes the time of good clinicans and does not create a challenge for underperforming doctors. I very much doubt if anyone has taken the trouble to quantify the benefits. The current system should either be scrapped entirely, or else replaced by a simple system that involves some measurable markers such as a regular online questionnaire relevant to the practitioner’s specialty.