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

Less than half of responsible officers positive about revalidation

A survey of responsible officers in London by The King’s Fund has found that just under half were positive about their experience of revalidation.

The survey of 53 of London’s 133 responsible officers found that 10% were negative about their experience whilst the remaining 40% said that they reserved judgement on revalidation ahead of year two, which they believed would be ‘trickier’.

Those surveyed highlighted the fact that performance concerns not experienced in the first year would surface in the second year when they would have to revalidate some of the less engaged and more challenging doctors with performance issues.

Their greatest concern for the second year lay with the cost of and resourcing necessary to provide remediation.

Vijaya Nath, assistant director in leadership development at The King’s Fund and the report’s author, said: ‘For revalidation to be more than a tick-box exercise that takes place every five years it needs to become a process that doctors value and therefore actively engage with.

‘The key to achieving this is to build on the potential for revalidation to increase quality and transparency for patients by making their feedback and experience integral to the process - in many cases this will require further work.’

The survey also found that responsible officers felt that further work to capture patient feedback and experience as part of the revalidation process is needed to support the ability to respond effectively to concerns that arise.

Readers' comments (3)

  • I suspect that most GPs do not value revalidation at all. Indeed, the impression that I am building up is that a large number find it bureaucratic and unhelpful. The GMCs own research shows that some people who have left the profession have directly cited revalidation as the reason for doing so. This situation is unlikely to improve. Indeed, it is likely to get worse as grass roots GPs experience the revalidation process in full. Combined with so many other adverse circumstances for GPs at present, we are likely to see a massive increase in recruitment and retention problems, with older GPs retiring early and younger ones emigrating.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • my summary of the situation:

    'Appraisal' = nice chat, dubious benefit
    'Revalidation' = complete waste of time

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mr Nath, "assistant director in leadership development" manages to explain exactly why GPs do not value and therefore do not actively engage with revalidation. Adding more patient feedback and experience -which will add more work!! Which job should I drop to do this Mr Nath??
    There is ample patient feedback-even on these pages which are supposed to be for health professionals only!
    What most patient feedback (along with King's Fund feedback) is how little these people understand how primary care functions and what it's limitations are!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say