The GMC is planning to launch revalidation in late 2012.
The regulator and the four home nation’s health departments issued a joint statement saying they will work together to ensure all the relevant systems will be ready by the summer of 2012.
It sets out key milestones that employers have to meet before revalidation is introduced. Responsible officers, who will recommend to the GMC which doctors should be revalidated, will need to be in post and all doctors will need to be taking part in an appraisal process.
Agreement is also required on the supporting information doctors will bring to their annual appraisal.
In a separate report, the GMC published the results of nearly 1,000 consultation responses to its plans. It claims that most of those who responded supported the main principles - including CPD points, 360-degree feedback, and surveys of patient opinion - but expressed concerns about how it would work in practice.
The potential for bureaucracy is an obvious area of concern, particularly the supporting information doctors would need to bring to their appraisal. Asked if it was practical for doctors to amass the required information, 46% said ‘yes’, but 24% said ‘no’ and 30% were ‘unsure’.
Patient and colleague feedback was also an issue of concern, with some respondents questioning the value of patient feedback and others fearing the influence of malicious comments by colleagues.
Most agreed that revalidation should be based on a continuing evaluation of a doctor’s performance in the workplace. And there was strong support for the plan to move away from the twin processes of relicensing and recertification which had been proposed in 2007.
Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, said: “Today’s statement is very significant. We are now moving into the implementation phase and the commitment of the administrations in every part of the UK to drive this forward is critical. Patients, quite rightly, expect their doctors to undergo regular checks and we are all committed to making sure we have the right system in place to make this happen.
“We will continue to listen and learn from individual doctors and from the piloting to make sure we have a system that is robust but also straightforward and cost-effective.”
Back in the summer, amid rumours that revalidation was to be scrapped altogether, health secretary Andrew Lansley delayed its implementation until it had been streamlined and piloted.
Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of BMA council, said: “The commitment to a revalidation system that is cost-effective, streamlined, flexible, proportionate and meaningful to all doctors is to be welcomed. But the lack of detail means a significant degree of uncertainty remains, compounded by new challenges presented by the recent white paper proposals for England.
“We understand the need for a clear path to implementation but this must not be at the expense of ensuring the process is right and has the confidence of doctors. As such, it is essential that the extended pilots in England are fully evaluated and any issues adequately addressed as part of the ‘test of readiness’, and before any possible launch later in 2012.”
While Dr Stephanie Bown, director of policy at MPS, also welcomed the GMC’s simplification of the proposals, she added: “We are struck by the absence of any information…about what structure will be in place to support its introduction, following the abolition of PCTs and SHAs in England. MPS would like to see revalidation and the role of Responsible Officers appropriately distanced from the NHS commissioning function as any real or perceived conflicts of interest could threaten the engagement of doctors and the public with this important process.
“Revalidation will be important, however it must be remembered that this is just one of several measures that should be in place to demonstrate to patients and the public that doctors are keeping their knowledge and skills up to date and are fit to practise.”
Read the BMA’s and the GMC’s full responses to the consultation.
Tags: Revalidation
The whole revalidation saga seems to be in the same sort of mess as the defence procuremant arrangements - the whole process takes too long, is constantly getting changed, and lands up with an ‘armament’ that is not really suited to the problems it then has to face!
Revalidation has been around for at least a decade. It was highlighted by ‘The Shipman case’; but all involved have recognised that none of the proposals (so far) would prevent ‘another Shipman’!
I am all in favour of the PRINCIPLE of a system that ensures that practising doctors keep up to date. But all are agreed that by far the majority of such doctors are performing adequately, if not well. So the present proposals are more like a nuclear bomb (rather than a sledgehammer) to crack a very small nut!
The main item that is required of a doctor is an adequate KNOWLEDGE of their chosen area of practice. This is, indeed, the only part of a doctor’s practice that can be properly ‘measured’ by an exam (possibly multiple-choice) - which could be done over the internet (if the doctor needs to look up the answer, they will have ‘brought themselves up to date!). All other assessments about ‘attitude’ and being a ‘team player’ are difficult to assess and are prone to the reaction of the individual assessor with the doctor being assessed. Although such attributes may be ‘desirable’ they are not essential. One should always remember that many, if not most, of the great innovators in medical practice were INDIVIDUALS, and were often thought to be eccentric - or even mad!
it is the result of a weak gmc leadership that ko-towed to the government when a robust defence of our profession was needed, that the doctor hating labour gouvernement was able to screw us over shipman. harold shipman was a bad man - NOT a bad doctor. he was NOT incompetent - his patients died because he wanted them to die, not because he was unable to save them. graeme catto’s ko-towing when a robust defence was needed got us into this mess. fred west was builder who used dead bodies in walls. do all builders have to regularly prove they do not use dead bodies in their brickwork becasue of this? of course not, it would be lunacy. yet thanks to the gmc, this is precisely where we are today.
It’s obvious what is going to happen here. Perfectly good doctors, expensively trained, who are on the margins for whatever reason (had a baby, ill, took time off to do something else, failed a college exam and need to take a different route, did a bit of whistleblowing, are foreign) will be driven out of medicine altogether.
The same happened with training numbers.
It also provides a wonderful opportunity for bullying of staff who want something different and better for patients.