The final report on “Revalidation processes for Sessional GPs – A feasibility study to pilot current proposals” is now available to read here. The study set out to explore the potential problems locum, salaried and remote GPs might have with the proposed supporting information required for appraisal as part of the revalidation process. GPs who experienced the most difficulty tended to be peripatetic locums and out of hours GPs with no permanent practice base.
The findings will come as no surprise to these GPs and will make worrying reading for those tasked with implementing a revalidation process that is fair to all doctors. Concerns raised in the report included:
- lack of support by practices and locum isolation.
- There were significant problems with the key revalidation requirements of Clinical Audit, Significant Event Audits.
- Patient Satisfaction Surveys and Multi-Source Feedback.
Possible solutions suggested included peer groups for reflective discussions, locum Chambers, greater support from Deaneries, LMCs, practices, OOH organisations and PCOs, alternatives to audit and other requirements, mentoring schemes, and locum prescribing numbers.
The RCGP has already gone some way to find alternative evidence that it would be acceptable for Sessional GPs to collate, and Version 4 of the Guide to Revalidation of GPs describes “equivalent portfolios” that GPs in Special Groups can present. However, substantial problems persist, and it remains to be seen how much support for locums will actually materialise. Past experience would suggest that there is a steep uphill path.
The BMA, in its evidence to the GMC consultation, had a number of criticisms of the current proposals, and opposition has come from several other quarters.
According to “Pulse” today, the “Department of Health is planning to substantially scale back revalidation in light of concerns over cost and anger among GP leaders about the level of bureaucracy to be heaped on practices”, and the article suggests areas where cuts may be made. With so many concerns about the cost, process, and fairness of the current proposals, it is surely time for the GMC to go back to the drawing board.
