Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
Was there any evidence that doctors were not keeping up do date before revalidation? if so, where is it? Is there any evidence that doctors are now more up to date in their knowledge, than before revalidation? If so, where is it? If a very expensive, stressful, and time consuming 'intervention' is to be loaded on to doctors, there should be a requirement to provide some evidence that a: there truly was a problem and b: that the intervention has had a measurable benefit.
At present revalidation looks very much like the 'something must be done' mentality that drives much of the additional bureaucratic burden that is regularly, and irreversibly, dumped everyone working in the NHS. Something must be done. Revalidation is something, we have done it. We have no way of measuring it. We have no idea what it does, or if it has worked.
The GMC is not listening to 'you', whoever you may be. It is merely trying to justify the introduction of an evidence free system that has no measurable, beneficial impact on patient outcomes. Which, when you get down to it, is the only reason for the NHS to exist, and the only reason why money should be spent by the NHS.