I have a reference to a letter to the BMJ written in 1999 (1). The
author believed that the GMC's then current proposals for revalidation
were flawed. That was 12 years ago, since when nothing has happened of any
consequence other than repeated episodes of navel-gazing and rumination,
and during which many "eminent, educated people" have spent a lot of time
in committee rooms away from their clinical practice. This is because it
is impossible to devise a sensible revalidation system for doctors that
can satisfactorily deal with all types of doctor in all types of
circumstance. It was obvious from the start ("We must stop another
Shipman!") and it remains obvious now. So it is not surprising that all
that has emerged from the GMC is a constant stream of unintelligible non-prose.
1. Grant IWB. GMC's current proposals for revalidation are flawed
[letter]. BMJ 1999;319:53-54.
Rapid Response:
No style; no surprise
I have a reference to a letter to the BMJ written in 1999 (1). The
author believed that the GMC's then current proposals for revalidation
were flawed. That was 12 years ago, since when nothing has happened of any
consequence other than repeated episodes of navel-gazing and rumination,
and during which many "eminent, educated people" have spent a lot of time
in committee rooms away from their clinical practice. This is because it
is impossible to devise a sensible revalidation system for doctors that
can satisfactorily deal with all types of doctor in all types of
circumstance. It was obvious from the start ("We must stop another
Shipman!") and it remains obvious now. So it is not surprising that all
that has emerged from the GMC is a constant stream of unintelligible non-prose.
1. Grant IWB. GMC's current proposals for revalidation are flawed
[letter]. BMJ 1999;319:53-54.
Competing interests: No competing interests