This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Revalidation paperwork equivalent to 390,000 days' worth of GP appointments

Exclusive GPs spend on average 55 hours a year on the revalidation process – equivalent to 1,300 full-time GPs working eight sessions a week – a Pulse survey has revealed.

The survey of 870 GPs found that more than a quarter spend more than 70 hours on revalidation, while only 15% spend less than 20 hours – which is how long it is supposed to take.

This is equivalent to 390,000 days’ worth of appointments lost to patients at a time when many are waiting at least two weeks for an appointment.

A Pulse investigation has also revealed that only 231 – or 0.4% - of all the revalidation recommendations made for GPs were serious enough for the regulator to threaten to withdraw a licence to practise. And that there is little evidence that revalidation improves patient care.

The survey, carried out last November, asked GPs how long they spend on the overall process of revalidation. A midpoint analysis revealed that they spend on average 55 hours a year. However, this is far greater that the two sessions a year cited by the RCGP for preparation and appraisal.

Dr Alan Woodall, a GP in Powys, Wales and the founder of the pressure group GP Survival, said: ‘For every hour of learning you can add another hour of recording and collating information. I spent three hours the other night going through information governance and child protection, none of which required any real learning.’

Meanwhile, the deputy chair of the BMA’s GP Committee, Dr Mark Sanford Wood, said although the union is supportive of the principle of revalidation, ‘considerable improvements’ need to be made.

He said that the 55 hours identified in Pulse’s survey was higher than the BMA’s findings, but added: ‘The time originally set aside was two sessions a year, one for preparation and one for the appraisal. But we know anecdotally that GPs are spending considerably more than that in putting together appraisal and evidence, probably in the region of four or five sessions a year which is a significant chunk of time taken away from patient contact.’

He added: ‘We need a national discussion about the evidence that’s required versus the delivery of patient care, particularly at the moment where we just don’t have enough GPs to do that job.’

But the GMC said this is bringing about positive change. A spokesperson said: ‘Revalidation has helped to strengthen the way we regulate doctors and embed a consistent approach to appraisal. Indeed, appraisal rates have risen steeply in all four countries of the UK since its introduction.

‘Doctors have said that the feedback they get from patients is particularly valuable for identifying areas for improvement. Revalidation in turn plays a vital role in assuring patients that their doctors are keeping up to date and have regular checks, maintaining confidence in the profession.’

But neither the GMC or the Department of Health were able to point to any evidence that revalidation has reduced avoidable deaths, harm caused by doctor or litigation costs, as claimed before revalidation was rolled out.

A DH spokesperson said: ‘As highlighted in the Taking Revalidation Forward review in January, the process has delivered significant benefits through its appraisal system and strengthened clinical governance procedures.’

Please note: the orginal version of this article mistakenly said it included the ’ten hours a year spent on CPD’. This was incorrect. The survey question referred to time spent on the ‘revalidation process’. We’re sorry for any confusion caused 

revalidation benefits vs costs 580x1668px

revalidation benefits vs costs 580x1668px

Readers' comments (32)

  • Healthy Cynic

    Just how are you meant to do 50 hours of CPD in 20 hours? And 'reflect' upon it!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Healthy Cynic

    GMC: "Indeed, appraisal rates have risen steeply in all four countries of the UK since its introduction."
    It's funny that isn't it - you make something mandatory and suddenly we all start doing it. Does that mean that it is invaluable?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In a horrible twist of irony, the time taken for GPs to complete paperwork for revalidation may impact more on patient care than the improvement in care that the process was originally designed to produce.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "information governance and child protection..."

    I understood that these are CQC requirements, not revalidation requirements - reforming revalidation process by itself would not get rid of the burden of "stat & mandatory" training.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Currently I find 'do my taxes day' is far more pleasant, far quicker and far more efficient than 'do my appraisal due next week day(s)'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "They" don't care - most of us have to do the whole process in our time not theirs, that's true for partners and locums, only the salaried (and well organised partnerships) are going to actually lose consultation time. A lot is done in half days, evenings, etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re-validation stuff is simple. The main burden is that created by the CQC and their arbitrary requirements for this training, that training etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And the powers that Be are still wondering why we are all less productive.
    Need to convert hours into money. Only money talks.
    Why hasn’t this been discussed in the media (alongside overstretched NHS news and poor workforce planning??)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pulse Power(less) 50

    1. Indeed, appraisal rates have risen steeply in all four countries of the UK since its introduction.
    Agree with above .. it is mandatory
    make it voluntary and see the numbers drop

    2. Appraisal and revalidation needs to be a confidential process purely to support and advance individual doctors
    at present no support or resources are provided

    3. The appraisal process is simply there to give the GMC any reason against you should you end up in their sights .... lose lose situation... records not good enough ... you are not good enough .... records good with honest report of all issues even those where you were not under any fault .. works against you
    kangaroo court beware

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pulse Power(less) 50

    BMA can diplomatically sit on the fence as always
    LAPDOGS

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say