I didn't follow this very closely since I'm fully retired. My work was NHS, hospital-based psychiatry and I rather had the impression that 'revalidation' could almost go through on the nod, since colleagues could revalidate one another. For sure, a dossier of evidence has to be provided that one has kept up to date but how well does that correlate with being a good doctor? Is it yet another paper exercise, like some sort of kite-mark? Who guards the guards? Who validates the validators?
And anyway, experience shows that so often yesterday's 'certain' knowledge of best practice is today's rubbish. I remain on the skeptical side. Can't help feeling that the whole thing was a panicky measure in response to a few bad episodes. Cf the dangerous dogs act?
ooops -- apols seek, not see
Do you recall that old rhyme --
Dysdiadochokinesis is a word that will bolster my thesis
that tis folly to see
such perfection in Greek
when confusion it only increases