Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

Will GP revalidation make things better or worse?

Paul Thomas
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (513): 318-319.
Paul Thomas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Question: what revalidation policy will produce quality practice and also prevent another Shipman? Answer: policy that makes practitioners unafraid to question the status quo. Shipman could have passed tests for medical competence. It was someone unafraid to ask ‘why do so many of your patients die?’ that found him out. Similarly, a quality practitioner is unafraid to go beyond a superficial medical diagnosis and patiently, persistently, gently, explore deeper, hidden things. Revalidation must lead to an environment where supportive asking of uncomfortable questions becomes the norm.

At an individual level, I am describing a reflective practitioner1 who uses qualitative as well as quantitative methods of inquiry. This practitioner recognises that what is known at a superficial level is never the whole story, and is always fishing for surprises.

At an organisational level, I am describing a learning organisation2 that teaches all staff the habit of learning from and with each other, and puts in place learning spaces, systems and feedback loops that help to translate individual learning into whole-organisation learning.

At the level of the whole system, I am describing a learning community,3 wherein people from different backgrounds develop trusted relationships that encourage friendly, not punitive, exploration of new ideas.

There is a wealth of knowledge about how to develop reflective practitioners, learning organisations and learning communities. Policy for revalidation could learn from this.

Argyris and Schon4 describe three distinct types of learning that are simultaneously required in a learning organisation:

  1. Single-loop learning relates to quantitative, positivist approaches to inquiry that leave the underlying assumptions of the status quo intact.

  2. Double-loop learning relates to qualitative, critical theory approaches to inquiry that question these assumptions.

  3. Deutero-learning, or ‘learning how to learn’, relates to participatory, constructivist approaches to inquiry that generates new knowledge through creative dialogue between different people.

Single-loop learning thinks in simple, linear and controlling ways. On its own it leads to defensive reasoning.4 This is good at maintaining the status quo and achieving short-term goals. However, it also encourages ‘top-down’, simplistic, ‘black and white’ solutions that cannot deal with the complexity inherent to most situations. Also, it is a dominant feature throughout the health service, including general practice. Overly emphasising this in revalidation will encourage further defensive behaviour — the opposite of what is needed. It is a self-evident fact that if a practitioner is made to feel vulnerable, accused or overly scrutinised, they will be less prepared to risk, increasingly pass responsibility to others, avoid exploration of deeper aspects of a patient's health, and retreat into the safe territory of evidence-based protocols, applying them with inappropriate rigidity. Whole person care, job satisfaction and health service costs will all suffer as a consequence.

Double-loop learning carefully considers the complexity and context of a situation — it encourages humility, active listening, and openness to new interpretations. Deutero-learning recognises that genuinely new knowledge is co-created — it encourages team-working, systems-thinking and inter-disciplinary participation in learning and inquiry. Together, these forms of learning lead to a heightened ability to identify and solve problems (which addresses the fear of another Shipman), build trusted relationships (which facilitates asking uncomfortable question) and lead to more effective learning (thereby increasing competence, quality and job satisfaction). They are less concerned with controlling others, and more about enabling them to see bigger pictures, and helping them to feel that they belong. Their systematic use would result in a smarter and cheaper approach to quality. However their use may also feel unfamiliar or ‘risky’. It may seem overly hands-off to those whose preference is to directly control the behaviour of others, and overly complex to those who expect simple, single solutions.

So how can these theories be applied to policy for revalidation?

  1. Revalidation should be seen as only one component of an integrated strategy to encourage good questioning, learning and quality throughout the career of a GP. Other closely related aspects are appraisal, participation in audit and research, organisational development, teaching, service monitoring, and participation in local innovation and inter-disciplinary learning sets. All of these things should be made relevant to each other within ongoing cycles of life-long learning. Appraisal and revalidation can be considered to be different stages in these cycles. Each individual would develop their own cycles to include things that fit best with their overall development. Part of the revalidation process could be an examination of its coherence.

  2. Special attention may be required for any practitioner whose performance causes concern. This can be at any stage of the cycle, including revalidation. However, the emphasis at all stages should not be on ‘passing’ or ‘failing’, but on meaningfully engaging in a pursuit for quality and personal development. This requires that facilitators, managers, teachers and leaders know how to make primary care a learning and nurturing environment.

  3. Learning and revalidation of individual practitioners cannot be totally divorced from learning and validation of the general practice organisation and the Primary Care Trust. PCT visits to assess the Quality and Outcomes Framework of a practice could become a key point in this cycle where diverse aspects of the practitioner, practice and locality stories can be considered together.

  4. Multiple windows into practitioner behaviour and learning are useful, built up into a portfolio and largely under practitioner control. The mentor/appraiser/facilitator should be able to help the practitioner to use this in an empowering way to describe their own life story, rather than as an onerous burden of accountability. Different and innovative windows should be encouraged, including audio and video analysis, peer consultation audit, 360° appraisal, knowledge questionnaires, audit and research projects, written papers, significant events, student teaching and leadership of team-learning. These should be presented not as defensive posturing, but as proud celebration of personal growth.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Schon DA
    (1983) The reflective practitioner (Maurice Temple Smith Ltd, London).
  2. ↵
    1. Senge P
    (1993) The Fifth Discipline (Century Hutchinson, London).
  3. ↵
    1. Wenger E
    (1998) Communities of practice — learning, meaning, identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
  4. ↵
    1. Argyris C,
    2. Schon DA
    (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice (Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts).
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 55 (513)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 55, Issue 513
April 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Will GP revalidation make things better or worse?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Will GP revalidation make things better or worse?
Paul Thomas
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (513): 318-319.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Will GP revalidation make things better or worse?
Paul Thomas
British Journal of General Practice 2005; 55 (513): 318-319.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Back Pages

  • Working with vulnerable families in deprived areas
  • What is the collective noun for a group of patients?
  • Development of undergraduate family medicine teaching in China
Show more The Back Pages

Debate

  • Is primary care the right place for genetic diagnosis?
  • Not tonight Josephine: on private in cursions in to primary care
Show more Debate

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242