Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Ready for revalidation? I am...

  • Print
  • Comments (4)
  • Save

It’s no secret that I’m not exactly finding general practice a breeze at the moment. The daily misery, the relentless increase in workload (much of which I believe is in no way in the interests of the patient), the approach of revalidation, the fact that after five static years we’ve had to give ourselves a 10% pay cut this month, and the fact that my blood pressure doggedly refuses to come down to a sensible level, all means that – even after going part time recently – I am not having much fun here.

Revalidation? I am just not facing up to it at the moment. I get emails, which I don’t open. There was a letter in the post this morning from the GMC, and I quote from the outside of the unopened envelope: ‘Ready For Revalidation -> Starts 3 December 2012.’ That’s in a couple of weeks! I don’t intend to open the letter until I’m a fair bit drunker than this. Maybe later tonight.

I am struggling to see the point of either annual appraisal or revalidation, for one main reason; it seems obvious to me that bad, incompetent or even frankly criminal doctors (of which there are undoubtedly more than a few) would barely break their stride in hurdling the obstacles that these processes would put in their way. It is an oft-repeated canard that Harold Shipman would have sailed through not only annual appraisal but 360-degree patient and colleague feedback. And if these processes are not designed to find people like him then what are they for? What are they actually for?

‘Kafkaesque menace’

I will concede that it is marginally more sensible for our profession to organise these hoop-jumping exercises ourselves, rather than allow some outside agency to have an aggressive poke at us at random, but I’m not impressed by our efforts so far.

I’d like to quote the medical intellectual giant Dr Theodore Dalrymple at this point: ‘In obeying directives not because they are right but because they are directives, doctors lose their self-respect, their probity and their intellectual honesty. Gogolian absurdity can result – with a hint of Kafkaesque menace and Orwellian linguistic dishonesty.’

And he wasn’t only talking about revalidation.

I’ve had a somewhat arm’s-length relationship with annual appraisal so far, since I discovered it wasn’t a legal requirement,but revalidation is different; it is a legal requirement, or what passes for legal in GMC-world, so I’ll have to play the game.

My impression is that appraisal and revalidation are all about reflection; the constant re-evaluation of how we practise and what we know. 

And here’s the rub; that’s exactly what I do. I live and breathe general practice, I bore myself to death with the amount of time I spend thinking about this vocation and those patients directly under my care. I wish I could bloody well stop, but all I can do in reality is to divert my obsession into these fortnightly articles. I genuinely doubt that there are more than a few GPs more obsessively reflective than I am.

So that’s my plan. When it’s my turn for revalidation, I’ll walk into the room, tell them that I’ve not had a clinical complaint in 15 years, and lay 20 photocopied Pulse articles on the table. That should be enough, shouldn’t it? And if not, why not? 

Dr Phil Peverley is a GP in Sunderland

Readers' comments (4)

  • Nobody ever said Shipman was incompetent - he was all too competent. Revalidation, as I understand it, is about spotting the morons, not the psychopaths.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pev,
    I, too, have suffered with high blood pressure with a possible TIA and I have no doubt that my condition is related to the relentlessness of government interference which has not been of any help to us or our patients.
    I believe strongly that the NHS should be looking to its workers as well as the patients and this mantra that the patient comes first with no further thought actually means that the voter comes first and the staff can drop like flies. Some excellent work is being done at Plymouth University looking at how toxic work environment damage health and for people with a significant adrenaline response to threat will suffer long term with cardiovascular disease.
    I would hope that the BMA would take this up on our behalf. Look after yourself and your family.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The BMA are "male, pale" and long past their shelf life. Their track record stands out for outstanding emptiness. I personally stopped my subscription long long ago when they let me down personally in a matter of great importance to the medical profession.
    As for the GMC, they are obliged to follow the directives of the Govt. of the day although it is their responsibility as to how they actually put things into practice.
    Peverley simply reflects the thoughts of a host of other doctors I know of.
    It is simply a case of turkeys voting for XMas where someone else is voting on their behalf!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Revalidation would be looked at as a good trigger to raise BPs and cause insomonia to the community of doctors who have been committed to their patients' healthcare as the first and foremost priority of their professional lives. While it will take away a lot of their time in learning how to scan and upload documents it wont necessarily update their clinical knowledge or make them better doctors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (4)
  • Save