BMJ  2005;330:1143 (14 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7500.1143

Commentary

Excellent review scheme for critical incidents but insufficient for revalidation

Mayur Lakhani, chairman of council1

1 Royal College of General Practitioners, London SW1 7PU MLakhani@rcgp.org.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

I want to consider the potential use of the Scottish Audit of Surgical Mortality (SASM)1 scheme for revalidation of surgeons. Revalidation is an important policy initiative in the United Kingdom from the medical profession's regulatory body, the General Medical Council.2 It is aimed at ensuring that doctors remain up to date and fit to practise, and is also a way of restoring and retaining the public's trust in doctors. The policy is in some difficulty, and the government has ordered a review of how revalidation can be made to work.

The Royal College of Surgeons of England and the Senate of Surgery recommend that surgeons include results of clinical outcomes and record of audits (including morbidity and mortality) in their evidence for revalidation.3 To this end, the SASM scheme, which looks at avoidable deaths, seems to be a potentially valuable contribution to the process.

The SASM scheme can be regarded . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Building a framework for trust: critical event analysis of deaths in surgical care
A M Thompson and P A Stonebridge
BMJ 2005 330: 1139-1142. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ