Appraisal and revalidation for doctors: complement or conflict?

$20.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Buy Article:

Abstract:

Appraisal and revalidation for doctors are often seen as two sides of the same coin, the currency for assuring safe standards of medical practice in the United Kingdom. Both are evidence-based processes: appraisal is formative, forward-looking, developmental and non-punitive; revalidation, on the other hand, is essentially summative, backward-looking, judgemental and potentially punitive.

What they have in common is two-fold: the principles to which they work – the seven principles of Good Medical Practice, as defined by the General Medical Council (GMC) – and the information, the evidence streams, that support the process. The evidence is derived from clinical governance systems, and it is therefore these that should give the assurance of quality sought by politicians and the public.

Trusts, therefore, have a duty to provide, and the Healthcare Commission a duty to verify, clinical governance systems that give doctors the information they need, to ensure that both appraisal and revalidation are sufficiently robust for supporting doctors and protecting patients. Neither appraisal nor revalidation will deliver on expectation if clinical governance arrangements are poor.

Keywords: APPRAISAL; CLINICAL GOVERNANCE; REVALIDATION

Document Type: Regular Paper

Publication date: December 1, 2004

More about this publication?
Related content

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more