The development of revalidation has taken too long and, from now on, the GMC should be accountable to Parliament, the health select committee has concluded.
The cross-party group of MPs urged the GMC to get on with implementing revalidation and making itself more accountable.
It says: “Now that late 2012 has been set as the date of implementation, we look to the GMC to ensure that there are no further delays and that the current target date is achieved.”
The current proposals need more work, it adds. The health select committee expresses concern over the “instinctive” use of the word ‘remediation’ and calls for more guidance for Responsible Officers (medical managers who sign off doctors’ revalidation locally or raise concerns with the regulator) about how they deal with colleagues’ underperformance.
It says: “While it is important to ensure that the rights and legitimate interests of doctors are safeguarded, the primary purpose of revalidation is to protect the interests of patients.”
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, responded: “This report makes clear that the committee shares the joint commitment of the GMC and the four UK health departments to introduce revalidation by the end of 2012. It remains our number one priority.
“The report rightly highlights areas where more work is needed - for example, on remediation we remain committed to supporting the four health departments who are taking the lead on this important issue. We are also working on a number of other fronts to make sure revalidation is fit for purpose and we will be supporting the newly appointed Responsible Officers to achieve this.”
The health select committee also criticised the “patchy” nature of appraisal and suggested progress was needed on enabling the GMC to test the language skills of doctors entering the UK.
While the report was broadly welcomed by the profession, Professor Peter Furness, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Revalidation Lead, warned that consultants would need sufficient time to revalidate. The AMRC has recommended 1.5 SPAs in the past.
He said: “The Academy is concerned that in the current challenging financial climate there are likely to be pressures on time made available to doctors. Doctors need time to keep themselves up to date and to demonstrate that they are doing so. We would recommend that this is addressed as a priority.”
The Royal College of Surgeons expressed disappointment that its calls for a risk-based approach have gone unheeded.
Professor Antony Narula, Royal College of Surgeons’ council member for revalidation, said: “The college has repeatedly called for a risk based approach to revalidation with the focus on doctors with non-standard careers, particularly locums, instead of doctors working full time in an NHS trust with existing appraisal and clinical governance systems.
“Unlike the committee, we do not agree that the Responsible Officers Regulations have provided sufficient clarification. We also remain concerned that monitoring of the whole of a doctors practice is not embedded in the system and there is currently no imperative for organisations to share information about clinicians who work in more than one place.”
Read more feedback to the revalidation inquiry.
Tags: GMC, Responsible officers, Revalidation
Aren’t there laws that make blatant discrimination of people illegal? It is the choice of each doctor how he/she structures his/her career, if they work in a full time job or as a locum. For as long as doctors comply with all legal requirements - what right would the GMC have to discriminate against them in a way the RCS suggests?
Well said, Joshek.
This is what I wrote about it:
http://www.doctors4justice.net/2011/02/rt-hon-stephen-dorrell-and-gmc.html
I have sent the copy of the above article to The Rt. Hon. Mr Stephen Dorrell.
Legal arguments against these proposals can be made without too much difficulty.
Dr Helen Bright
Leader of Doctors4Justice
I am concerned that there can be malicious referrals to the GMC of clinicians who have raised concerns; it is something that I have been made aware of by a number of colleagues. I have just read the information about Dr Mattu on the doctors 4 justice site and his story seems to be a familiar one.
Something which I have recently learned is that the employer effectively decides who will be investigated, which means that they choose. not the GMC
What I mean is; that after a referral is made to the GMC the employer is asked for their view. This all sounds good in principle but only if there is transparency and fair play.