The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation: Revalidation process would not pass appraisal

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7505.1447-b

BMJ 2005;330:1447 (18 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7505.1447-b

Letter

The General Medical Council and the future of revalidation

Revalidation process would not pass appraisal

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

EDITOR—Catto's paper in the series on the GMC and thefuture of revalidation, although very thoughtful, does not tacklemany of the problems with revalidation as it has been discussedhitherto.¹ Catto also fails to understand that Dame Janet Smith'sinquiry report is largely irrelevant to revalidation, particularlyfor doctors who are not general practitioners.

The current appraisal process, on which revalidation seems likelyto be based, is clunky, time consuming, bureaucratic, and largelyirrelevant to an assessment of whether a doctor is fit to practise.

Firstly, the current process does not contain any mention of360° appraisal, surely one of the most effective ways ofshining a light into the darker corners of a doctor's practice.

Secondly, although audit is no doubt essential, to perform meaningfulaudit is extraordinarily difficult if the person being auditedis not a surgeon. If I see a patient with pneumonia on . . . [Full text of this article]

Roger A Fisken, consultant physician

Friarage Hospital, Northallerton, North Yorkshire DL6 1JG roger.fisken@stees.nhs.uk