Where next with revalidation?

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1458 (Published 23 June 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1458
  1. John J Norcini (jnorcini@faimer.org), president
  1. Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research, 3624 Market Street, 4th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

    Self regulation should survive, but revalidation must offer education as well as performance review

    A century ago, Cornford described how a conservative faculty at Cambridge University, England, struggled to deflect the pressure to reform.1 Some aspects of that treatise have been reprised in the BMJ series on the United Kingdom General Medical Council, which ends this week, as regulators take on the public's need for a mechanism to ensure that doctors provide good care for patients throughout their careers.28 Three themes emerge from this series and from the broader debate: revalidation is necessary; revalidation must be comprehensive; and medicine should be self regulated.

    In his article, Irvine espouses the view that doctors are personally responsible for their own ability to provide good care and that they share in the collective responsibility for their colleagues.4 In this context, revalidation is an essential expression of professionalism and a means of establishing accountability to patients and the public.

    Overwhelmingly, patients also feel that revalidation is necessary. Cain, …

    View Full Text

    Log in

    Log in through your institution


    * For online subscription