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
Editorials

CMO's report on revalidation

Brian D Keighley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (530): 651-652.
Brian D Keighley
The Clinic, Balfron, Stirlingshire
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In the aftermath of the Shipman Inquiry's fifth report,1 the Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, had an unenviable task in producing a report2 on patient safety, revalidation and the functions and structure of the General Medical Council (GMC) that would engage a general public exercised by the circumstances it reviewed, a bemused government and a UK medical profession showing a loss of confidence. His 44 recommendations deserve careful consideration but, alongside those that will be generally welcomed, others bear more careful scrutiny during the 4-month period of consultation.

Our patients should welcome the emphasis on increased public safety and the Royal College of General Practitioners will recognise many of its responses to Donaldson's Call for Ideas3 in his final recommendations, and will welcome the pivotal role for it that he proposes in their delivery. Even with a rigorous approach, there will always be variation of standards within a range and the public must accept that even if that variation is narrowed, by definition, the performance of 50% of all ‘good’ doctors will be ‘below average’. Donaldson proposes examining a number of domains of performance, but any test of a reasonable level of knowledge must take into account not only that range of normal achievement, but also the different ways that doctors at different stages of their careers codify their knowledge. The young doctor can produce long lists of differential diagnoses, whereas older doctors, relying on long experience, not only know what they do not know, but know where to find the answer. The trick will be to bridge both variables with a method capable of withstanding legal challenge.

A ‘rigorous approach’ may possibly ignore any debate over revalidation's core purpose. Some believe that a recertification process is one that should summatively guarantee quality practice. …

View Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (530)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 530
September 2006
  • 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.
CMO's report on revalidation
(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
CMO's report on revalidation
Brian D Keighley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (530): 651-652.

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
CMO's report on revalidation
Brian D Keighley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (530): 651-652.
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
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
  • Realising the potential of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies for older adults
  • Time to reshape our delivery of primary care to vulnerable older adults in social housing?
Show more Editorials

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