GMC's proposals for revalidation would not be accurate, economical, or fair
Click below to download PDF document
You will require Acrobat Reader to view file
Click here for PDF document
The General Medical Council's proposal for a five-year assessment to identify potentially inadequate doctors would be unfair, inaccurate and very expensive, according to a letter in this week's BMJ.
The proposed system - based on an individual group of assessors for each doctor's review - will suffer from assessor bias and a lack of serious training, making it unreliable and inaccurate, argues Richard Wakeford. Furthermore, estimates of the time needed for the review suggest a cost of at least £50 million a year. A paper based assessment exercise, with a maximum one-day's duration, could be devised as an accurate, economical and fair alternative for predicting clinical performance, he concludes.
Contact:
Richard Wakeford, Convenor of Cambridge Conferences on Medical Education, Hughes Hall, Cambridge
Mobile: 07712 580 460
Email: rew5@cam.ac.uk