This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

First GP is at risk of losing licence to practise through revalidation

Exclusive A first GP is at risk of losing their licence to practise for failing to engage with revalidation, the GMC has told Pulse, as official figures show one in ten GPs have had their revalidation date postponed.

The regulator said that five doctors overall, including the one GP, failed to engage with the revalidation process, and have been notified they are at risk of losing their licence. The GMC said it was unable to provide details about how the doctors failed to engage.

The GMC has also told Pulse that it recommended deferral for 754 of the 7,628 GPs (10%) appraised between 3 December 2012 and 28 August 2013, compared with 15% of all doctors.

A GMC protocol for responsible officers instructs them to make a recommendation that a doctor has failed to engage with revalidation if the doctor has not taken part in appraisal or other revalidation activities, and all reasonable local processes have been exhausted in attempts to rectify the doctor’s failure to engage.

It adds that if the GMC decides to begin the process of administratively removing a doctor’s licence to practise, they are informed and given 28 days to make representations to the GMC if they wish to appeal.

Doctors leaders called on the GMC to release details of why doctors had failed to engage with revalidation.

Dr Jane Lothian, chair of Northumberland LMC, said: ‘I’m in two minds. I’ve been through the process, and I was very apprehensive, but all I did was tick all the boxes I had to and I got my letter saying I’d been revalidated. It wasn’t as bad as I’d thought.

‘What I really think is important now is for us to find out all the details of why doctors were deferred, or failed to engage. Is it people who are failing on minor technicalities? They’ve got to tell us, so that LMCs can do their job and support doctors, that’s what we’re here for.’

The GMC also revealed that the total number of doctors whose revalidation date has been deferred has also shot up. In June, Pulse reported that 10% of the 8,724 doctors appraised between December 2012 and June 2013 had their revalidation deferred, including 351 GPs.

The latest figures show that the total number of doctors whose revalidation date has been deferred has shot up to 15%, while the number of GPs who have had their revalidation deferred is now 754 - 10% of the 7,628 GPs in total.

The regulator said that doctors in training make up almost half of all deferral recommendations as their revalidation date is postponed to coincide with the date of their Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT).

A GMC spokesperson said: ‘When revalidation was introduced doctors in training had their first revalidation date set at their projected Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) date. Since the start of revalidation many of these dates have changed, as expected, and their responsible officer has deferred them to the new anticipated date. Doctors in training represent 47% of the current deferrals of all doctors.’

GMC chief executive Mr Niall Dickson said added that it was is expected that revalidation will be deferred for a ‘small proportion’ of doctors.

He said: ‘We have now seen more than 16,500 doctors revalidated and every doctor in the UK with a licence to practise should now have a revalidation date. The system is up and running and the reports we are receiving indicate that it is working well at local level.

‘The vast majority of doctors put forward have successfully revalidated and, as expected, we have approved a small proportion for deferral. This usually means a six month delay or less.

‘The system is meant to be flexible so that if responsible officers need more time before making a recommendation they can apply to us for a deferral which enables the doctor to continue to practise in the meantime.’

The news comes as GPC leaders say they will still support the revalidation process, even amid concerns that NHS England might withdraw funding for remediation.

Readers' comments (16)

  • Why would some fear a 'board' exam every 5 years similar to the US?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Further examinations are definitely an expensive and bad idea. It already takes 10 years to train most doctors. Can you imagine the scandal when people started to fail? It would trigger all sorts of demands for reviews of patient notes to ensure 'patient safety' not to mention the chaos in practices who needed to cover or lost a failed colleague. This would be destabilizing and grossly unfair on people who have developed skills and experience at managing their particular caseload. College exams were designed to get you up to a certain standard so you can really immerse yourself in an area of medical practice but they are all flawed and only cover limited aspects of medical care. I believe the present system is bad enough and holds people back from their true passions by diverting their energy for far too long as it is. If you look at most true breakthroughs in science they were made by people under the age of 30 who were unencumbered by such dross. Keeping people as perpetual students is wrong and should be resisted at all costs, it's a distraction from the real complex world.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • it is a very frustrating process-in my case I received an e mail from the RO that my revalidation is deferred but no reasons given.
    there is no guidance as to what made them decide for deferment
    so if the candidate does not know why the date is deferred how will he/she prepare for the final date
    it is a very dictatorial attitude

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All doctors today deserve whats being heaped on them by HMG aka GMC, CQC, DOH etc, etc by not taking action when it was time to, by not challenging their own leaders and by being selfish (looking after their own interests). Reap what you sow (or has been sown for you).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Utter spinelessness of the Profession, but particularly the BMA, has allowed this bucket of poo to be poured over us.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • just one question: Would Dr Shipman pass the Appraisal/Revalidation process???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say