Letters

GMC's proposals for revalidation would not be accurate, economical, or fair

BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7270.1220 (Published 11 November 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;321:1220

This article has a correction. Please see:

  1. Richard Wakeford ([email protected]), convenor of Cambridge conferences on medical education
  1. Hughes Hall, Cambridge CB1 2EW

    EDITOR—To anyone involved in assessing medical competence, the General Medical Council's proposal for revalidation is potentially unfair and inaccurate, and very expensive.1

    The proposal has two parts. The first—annual appraisal—is uncontroversial; it can be helpful.2 The second is a summative assessment every five years, aggregating the appraisals, which is reviewed by two doctors from the appraisee's field and a lay person; collectively they determine whether to recommend revalidation. This does not lead to de-registration: it acts as a sieve, seeking to identify …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe