This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GMC reveals revalidation has raised concerns for just 23 GPs

Exclusive Only 23 GPs have had concerns flagged through revalidation and have had to undergo further training or remediation, according to figures disclosed by the GMC.

The new statistics reveal for the first time the extent of the problems with GP performance that have been picked up in over 8,000 GPs in the UK since revalidation was introduced in December 2012.

Correct to September 2013, they show just 23 GPs were not revalidated as they were part of an ‘ongoing local process’ - either because they were undergoing remediation or were required to complete another local process before they could be revalidated.

A further 851 had their revalidation deferred due to there being ‘insufficient evidence’, although the GMC did say that many of these were doctors in training who wanted to wait until they had completed their studies before being revalidated.

The GMC also said that ‘less than ten’ GPs had been listed as failing to engage with the process.

The figures support comments from the chair of the GMC in 2012 suggesting that revalidation could end up identifying fewer than 125 GPs who require remediation in its first five-year cycle – fewer than were singled out under previous processes.

But the figures prompted GP leaders to question whether the whole process of revalidation was a useful use of GPs’ time, if very few serious clinical issues were being picked up.

The GPC’s lead on revalidation, Dr Dean Marshall, told Pulse that he had yet to hear of any incompetent doctors unearthed by revalidation.

He said: ‘We’ve had no indication that [any deferrals were] due to clinical issues, and the vast majority are due to administrative problems’.

Dr Marshall also revealed that, although the GPC continues to support the principle of revalidation, it has longstanding concerns about the process and has set up a national revalidation council to bring the GMC and other relevant bodies round a table to discuss its implementation.

He told Pulse: ‘We think there are continuing problems that are likely to persist, and that there should be an identified group to deal with GP issues.’

GPC negotiator Dr Peter Holden recently predicted a ‘revolt’ from grassroots GPs last year after warning some are spending more than 40 hours preparing for appraisals.

Dr Peter Graves, secretary of Bedfordshire and Hertordshire LMC, said although the introduction of revalidation had presented few problems, it had introduced a level of bureaucracy that GPs found difficult. He added: ‘It has detracted from the true value of appraisal and revalidation.’

But the GMC said last year that the scheme had been a success so far, even though its figures showed one in ten GPs having their revalidation deferred in the first year. The regulator’s chief executive Niall Dickson said: ‘These are very early days, but we are pleased with the progress made in the first year’.

 

Readers' comments (23)

  • Were they called Harrold or Shipman....bet not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Editor,
    Any information on whether cost of remediation will be paid by NHSE? Probably not????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Revalidation was the reason I retired. It is an absurdly bureaucratic process that yields little except cost and hassle. The level of lack of self-criticism in the GMC is amazing. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    As has been quoted elsewhere "using a sledgehammer to miss a nut"

    Dominic Faux (Jobbing Doctor)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't understand why there has been so little analysis of the shameful costs of all this? Given the tiny benefits found to date, patients should be furious that they are missing out on vital treatments whist cash is wasted a GMC pet project. £97 million a year buys a huge amount of nurses and treatments. At such a time of austerity and slashing of services it beggars belief that the GMC can justify this enormous white elephant. Squandering scarce resources at a time when the NHS faces unprecedented challenges is just plain wrong however you look at it. Patients have a right to feel aggrieved at the damage that revalidation is doing to the UK healthcare system and should be demanding accountablity from those that ushered this shambles into existence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When is PAUL DACRE going to be re validated?? Editor of the Daily Mail, he earns £1.85 million per year with a pension of £652,000 per year reports the Guardian today.....and he calls us greedy???!!! Does PULSE Magazine have the balls to highlight his mega salary and hypocrisy?? Or will Haymarket Media " lean" on the Editor to suppress the article??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well Michael Heseltine, Chairman of all that covers PULSE magazine is not so keen on Dacre these days?? So you never know.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 23 out of 8,000? Absolute proof that predictions of the worthlessness of appraisal as a basis for re-validation were accurate. My family and I have encountered more than 23 useless GPs. Please can they/you be properly assessed?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Anonymous 9:25,
    I beg to differ, I suspect you have had 23 professional GP 's who have done exactly what was medically necessary -but NOT WHAT YOU WANTED.
    Although this is meant as a reflective comment to improve your future experience of health care, I regret lack of access to your identity to ensure I am safe to sign it means I too must post anonymously.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • >I beg to differ, I suspect you have had 23 professional GP 's
    ---

    Someones when it seems like everyone else to blame, it turns out that you, yourself are the problem....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dr Mustapha Tahir

    The statistics do not come as a surprise. Majority of GPs are decent and very professional. A system that could pick out only the tiny minority who need appraisal & Revalidation should evolve. I doubt the need of imposing this process on ALL doctors. They've got enough to deal with and are acutely aware of maintaining their knowledge up to date. Most do. Resources could be saved by limiting this process to a very tiny minority.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say