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- Richard Wakeford (rew5@admin.cam.ac.uk), convenor of Cambridge conferences on medical education
- 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 …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.