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

Revalidation is not a waste of time

Niall Dickson argues that GPs shouldn’t dismiss the process just yet

From Niall Dickson, chief executive and registrar of the GMC

Pulse’s article on GPs needing remediation misses the point. Revalidation is a process not a point in time, pass or fail test. There is a moment in every cycle when the doctor’s responsible officer signs off that he/she has been part of that process. Unsurprisingly at that point, the vast majority of doctors have successfully provided the evidence and had their appraisals.

A closer look at the figures suggests that it is having an effect. A large number of doctors are being subjected to an appraisal for the first time. Between seven and 12 per cent of doctors are having their revalidation deferred, in most cases because they have not yet been able to produce all the evidence they need to be revalidated. Most will be able to do so, but in some cases it is because they are subject to some form of local disciplinary or remediation process.

There is a further group whose revalidation has been put on hold because they are being investigated by the GMC. Around 1.6 million patients have evaluated their doctor, as have huge numbers of staff who have given feedback on colleagues.

These are early days but initial signs are encouraging. Senior doctors charged with operating the system are overwhelmingly positive and groups such as peripatetic locum doctors who have previously been neglected - and in some cases been viewed as a cause for concern - now collect information about their practice and are subject to annual appraisal.

It remains our ambition to work with the profession, employers and patient groups to refine the system once every doctor has been through it.

We have commissioned an independent evaluation and after interim results in January 2016, we should all be in a better position to assess the impact of the first wave of revalidation and how it can be improved and developed.

Rate this article  (1.6 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (46)

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course revalidation is absolutely vital. You have to look at the bigger picture. Without revalidation GMC employees would not be able to justify their grossly inflated salaries, and they would not be able to justify having private health care. After all everyone knows what the problems are in the NHS !!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Take a straw poll of the whole profession. Most GPs do not want this hassle. Most do not think it benefits them. Most do not think it benefits the patients. Most are sick of bureaucracy and forms. Most are deeply resentful of bureaucrats like those in the GMC.

    Don't condescend to us Dr Dickson.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • But there needs to be some sort of process, right? Its a matter of how its done.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said Niall so many people have just had to shut up about lously treatment from health workers who had not kept up since they qualified decades ago .People do move/live in different parts of the country and register in different practices ,

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • He would say that wouldn't he!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Revalidation was one of the reasons I retired early. Now, Mr Dickson might think that is unimportant, but I'll bet there were plenty of others like me.

    It is pretty typical that he is not listening to the views of the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'We have commissioned an independent evaluation and after interim results in January 2016, we should all be in a better position to assess the impact of the first wave of revalidation and how it can be improved and developed' -> translation -> if we find we have not failed enough GPs we will tighten up the process and add in more hurdles and barriers so we can at least fail 5% of GPs every 5 years so that you come to fear us and do exactly what we tell you to do. Oh btw we will increase our fees and make you pay it x

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is there any evidence, actual evidence, that revalidation has done anything to improve patient care?
    It has certainly done harm as some GPs are being driven out from an under-doctored service.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why are you proud that doctors have revalidation put on hold when they have a complaint being investigated by the GMC? Do they not have the same "innocent until proven Guilty" rights as the rest of the population? Nothing should make them feel like they are guilty until proven innocent and these needs to be addressed IMMEDIATELY by the GMC. otherwise you are treating the people who pay your salaries with complete disrespect and I'm sure breaking some human rights laws at the same time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say