Revalidation: The purpose needs to be clear

British Medical Journal

Volumn 328, Issue 7441, 2004, Pages 684-686

  Van Zwanenberg, Tim ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CERTIFICATION; COMPETENCE; FITNESS; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; LICENSING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS; ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FORECASTING; LEGAL ASPECT; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARD;

ACCREDITATION; CERTIFICATION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FORECASTING; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; PHYSICIANS; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 1642265369     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7441.684     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. General Medical Council A licence to practise & revalidation. London: General Medical Council, 2003.
2. Van Zwanenberg TD. The revalidation of general practitioners: an analysis of policy development between May 1997 and July 2001. University of Newcastle, 2002. (Thesis for doctorate of education.)
3. Department of Health. The new NHS: modern, dependable. London: Stationery Office, 1997.
4. Department of Health. A first class service: quality in the new NHS. London: Stationery Office, 1998.
5. Department of Health. Supporting doctors, protecting patients. London: DoH, 1999.
6. Department of Health. Assuring the quality of medical practice: implementing supporting doctors protecting patients. London: DoH, 2001.
7. Department of Health. Modernising medical regulation:interim strengthening of the GMC's fitness to practise procedures. London: DoH, 2000.
8. General Medical Council. Revalidating doctors: ensuring standards, securing the future. London: GMC, 2000.
9. Taylor AJP. English history 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
10. Newble D. Purpose of revalidation process must be agreed on. BMJ 2001;322:358.
11. Wakeford R. GMC's proposals for revalidation would not be accurate, economical, or fair. BMJ 2000;321:1220.
12. Wakeford R. Appraisal makes for effective revalidation. BMJ 2003;327:161.
13. Pringle M. Re-evaluating revalidation and appraisal. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:437-8.
14. Cordon M. Appraisal: the catalyst of personal development. BMJ 2003;327:389-91.
15. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. London: GMC, 2001.
16. Roberts C, Newble DI, O'Rourke AJ. Portfolio-based assessments in medical education: are they valid and reliable for summative purposes? Med Educ 2002;36:899-900.
17. Irvine D. General practice in the 1990s: a personal view on future developments. Br J Gen Pract 1993;43:121-5.
18. Dauphinee D. Revalidation of doctors in Canada. BMJ 1999;319:1188-90.
19. van Zwanenberg T. The system responds. In: Harrison J, Innes R and van Zwanenberg T, eds. Rebuilding trust in healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2003.