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  (1.56 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)

  • Anonymous | GP Partner | 27 May 2015 8:23am
    'Why did GMC change from representing doctors, to persecuting them, with prejudice of guilty until proven innocent, robbing people of their self esteem and income, and stain their reputations, even when eventually found innocent of all charges years later.'

    Answer - when it stopped being full of doctors, to being full of lawyers and managers, who saw the gravy train and jumped on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would urge all posters to complete the survey (although it is hardly independent as it has been funded by the GMC themselves).
    I still think all doctors should stop paying GMC fees. No strikes needed but would make government stand up and take notice

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is little wrong with the appraisal format. It just comes round far too often. Every three years would be OK and revalidation after 6 years. You could do a very short simple annual progress report (to help avoid last minute panic) to satisfy those who think it should be every year.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • revalidation feb retiring jan

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Conflicts if interest writ large: what would I do if I were not championing this waste of time and energy. Mr Dickson, revalidation is a waste of everything.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The revalidation theory is fine, it's just how it is implemented is flawed. I retired early because of it. It detracts from patient care and does nothing to improve safety. It needs rethinking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say