Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
EDITOR:
The purpose of revalidation is to reassure the public that their doctors
are competent and abide by high ethical standards. Revalidation will be
the ongoing system that review professional performance, aid doctors in
developing their skills while at the same time identifying at an early
stage those who are performing poorly. The stages of revalidation will
include collecting evidence of competence and performance, regular review
of this evidence through group of medical and lay people make
recommendations for revalidation and reporting that to GMC(1), at the same
time all NHS hospital and primary care doctors will be subject to regular
appraisal and will need to have a personal development plan. This will
form the central core of revalidation. Revalidation is not going to be
cheap (2,3) wherever the money will come from; this may affect the quality
of care delivered.What I suggest is to implement an MOT system for
revalidation by addressing the issue of not revalidating the consultants
who took up their appointment five years post CCST certificate. This will
avoid duplicating the system with doctors already been validated at the
end of their training, cut in time and cost.
Dr.M.H.Alsahaf
1. General Medical Council. Proposals for revalidation. London: GMC,
2000.
2. Bashook PG, Parboosingh J. Recertification and the maintenance of
competence. BMJ 1998; 316: 545-548
3. Swinkels JA. Reregistration of medical specialists in the Netherlands.
BMJ 1999; 319: 1191-1192
Revalidation and MOT system
EDITOR:
The purpose of revalidation is to reassure the public that their doctors
are competent and abide by high ethical standards. Revalidation will be
the ongoing system that review professional performance, aid doctors in
developing their skills while at the same time identifying at an early
stage those who are performing poorly. The stages of revalidation will
include collecting evidence of competence and performance, regular review
of this evidence through group of medical and lay people make
recommendations for revalidation and reporting that to GMC(1), at the same
time all NHS hospital and primary care doctors will be subject to regular
appraisal and will need to have a personal development plan. This will
form the central core of revalidation. Revalidation is not going to be
cheap (2,3) wherever the money will come from; this may affect the quality
of care delivered.What I suggest is to implement an MOT system for
revalidation by addressing the issue of not revalidating the consultants
who took up their appointment five years post CCST certificate. This will
avoid duplicating the system with doctors already been validated at the
end of their training, cut in time and cost.
Dr.M.H.Alsahaf
1. General Medical Council. Proposals for revalidation. London: GMC,
2000.
2. Bashook PG, Parboosingh J. Recertification and the maintenance of
competence. BMJ 1998; 316: 545-548
3. Swinkels JA. Reregistration of medical specialists in the Netherlands.
BMJ 1999; 319: 1191-1192
Competing interests: No competing interests