We have previously discussed revalidation as an emerging trend in professional regulation (see Revalidation: the Present and Future of Professional Regulation?). On 14 March the NHS Revalidation
We have previously discussed revalidation as an emerging trend in professional regulation (see Revalidation: the Present and Future of Professional Regulation?). On 14 March the NHS Revalidation Support Team (RST) published a report summarising the early benefits and impact of GMC revalidation, essentially concluding that it has been a qualified success. The report concludes that, one year into implementation, medical revalidation is delivering value but that more needs to be done to maximise benefits in the future. Key points from the report include signs that concerns about a doctor’s practice are being identified at an earlier stage, strong support for the system among responsible officers and appraisers and strong support from doctors, appraisers and responsible officers for medical appraisal.
The feedback has not, however, been universally positive. Some doctors indicated that revalidation is not relevant to their needs, while other concerns are that the revalidation process is taking longer than expected and that patients and the public need a clearer and more powerful role in revalidation. The report makes a number of key recommendations including, interestingly, the need for patients and the public to have a stronger role in revalidation.
Responding to the report, Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, said:
‘This is an encouraging report. It suggests that revalidation has begun to have an impact on the number and quality of annual appraisals of doctors and it suggests the new system may be helping to spot concerns at an earlier stage. At the heart of this, there are signs that healthcare organisations are taking their responsibilities in this area more seriously both in supporting doctors and in identifying where there may be problems.
But we are at the start of this process and there is plenty for all of us to learn as the system beds in. We are committed to listening to those who run the system, as well as those who have been through it, and this combined with an independent ongoing evaluation will help us develop and refine the model, including how we gather patient and colleague feedback.’
As we discussed previously, we expect that a number of other regulators will study the RST conclusions with interest. While the RST report suggests that there is room for improvement, its conclusions are likely to provide a welcome barometer of the progress of GMC revalidation so far, particularly when it is remembered that one of the main drivers behind medical revalidation was the need to identify concerns about a doctor’s practice at an earlier stage. If the GMC is able to build on the progress of its model, then a number of other regulators may look to use the NHS appraisal system, though it remains to be seen whether it can be rolled out as thoroughly to non-doctors. In addition, it will be interesting to see how revalidation seeks to engage with patients and the public and we will continue to monitor the issue.
The feedback has not, however, been universally positive. Some doctors indicated that revalidation is not relevant to their needs, while other concerns are that the revalidation process is taking longer than expected and that patients and the public need a clearer and more powerful role in revalidation. The report makes a number of key recommendations including, interestingly, the need for patients and the public to have a stronger role in revalidation.
Responding to the report, Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, said:
‘This is an encouraging report. It suggests that revalidation has begun to have an impact on the number and quality of annual appraisals of doctors and it suggests the new system may be helping to spot concerns at an earlier stage. At the heart of this, there are signs that healthcare organisations are taking their responsibilities in this area more seriously both in supporting doctors and in identifying where there may be problems.
But we are at the start of this process and there is plenty for all of us to learn as the system beds in. We are committed to listening to those who run the system, as well as those who have been through it, and this combined with an independent ongoing evaluation will help us develop and refine the model, including how we gather patient and colleague feedback.’
As we discussed previously, we expect that a number of other regulators will study the RST conclusions with interest. While the RST report suggests that there is room for improvement, its conclusions are likely to provide a welcome barometer of the progress of GMC revalidation so far, particularly when it is remembered that one of the main drivers behind medical revalidation was the need to identify concerns about a doctor’s practice at an earlier stage. If the GMC is able to build on the progress of its model, then a number of other regulators may look to use the NHS appraisal system, though it remains to be seen whether it can be rolled out as thoroughly to non-doctors. In addition, it will be interesting to see how revalidation seeks to engage with patients and the public and we will continue to monitor the issue.