Revalidation of doctors
fourth report of session 2010-11, Vol. 1: Report, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence
Description:... The Committee says the GMC should be accountable to Parliament. The GMC is formally accountable to the Privy Council but "In the absence of a mechanism which makes this accountability effective" the MPs intend to exercise this function themselves on behalf of Parliament. Revalidation of doctors has been under discussion for over 10 years. This is considered too long the GMC is expected to ensure that there are no further delays and that the current target date of late 2012 is achieved. Reviewing the GMC's current proposals MPs warn that too little attention has been given to the issue of how to deal with doctors whose practice gives cause for concern. The Committee is also concerned that the use of the word 'remediation' may have the effect of pre-judging the appropriate response to a particular set of circumstances. In relation to appraisal systems, MPs broadly support the proposal that revalidation should be based on the conclusions of employers' appraisal systems. However, there is evidence showing that the record of employers on appraisal is patchy and the importance of patient and colleague involvement in the appraisal process is emphasised. MPs also felt there should be clear guidance about how Responsible Officers should act when a conflict of interest arises between their responsibility to their employer and their responsibility to the GMC. Finally the issue of doctors for whom English is a second language was considered. As the body responsible for revalidation and with a commitment to introducing it by late 2012, the GMC is expected to satisfy itself that it has the necessary powers to fulfil this role; if it is not satisfied it needs to say so publicly and report to Parliament what changes are necessary to allow it to fulfil its function effectively
Show description