Regulation and revalidation of doctors: Dangers and opportunities

doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7562.303-a

BMJ 2006;333:303 (5 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7562.303-a

Letter

Regulation and revalidation of doctors

Dangers and opportunities

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

EDITOR—Pringle's editorial reinforces the General MedicalCouncil's corporate view that its prime function is, and alwayswill be, the protection of the public by promoting the higheststandard of medical care in the United Kingdom, something thatis best delivered in partnership with others.¹

Pringle welcomes the bipartite approach to revalidation, especiallythe element applying to career grade doctors. This, however,is to adopt only one view of the intention of revalidation,to be as near an absolute guarantee of competence as can bedevised. The alternative view is that such a process would bebetter managed in an incremental fashion with the first stepto define the meaning of registration or the holding of a licencewith the guarantee of competence developing as a by-product.No matter which system prevails, 50% of all doctors will remainbelow average.

Pringle describes the 2003 proposals for revalidation as being. . . [Full text of this article]

Brian D Keighley, general practitioner

Balfron, Stirlingshire G63 0TS Bkeighley@aol.com