I have written a draft submission to the Medical Board of Australia expressing significant concerns about revalidation. The one area I have not included is probably the most important: What is the problem? Where is the evidence this complicated process is required? Is it just more Nanny state bullshit because the profession cannot be trusted?
These are the recommendations of thew Medical Board Expert Advisory Group. They are also present in the revised CPD program of the RANZCP
The recommendations include:
The problem is that this is a generic list that does not fit some groups. The people who do medicolegal work measuring outcomes is meaningless. All of the third component has no relevance. Reviewing performances is also problematical particularly multisource feedback from peers, medical colleagues, co-workers, patient, other health practitioners. How on earth do we do that.
Similarly peer-reviewed medical records. We have no medical records we have reports. The reports are assessed by the various statutory schemes and by lawyers and ultimately attested in court. There is no recognition of that. Peer review is something that we do anyway but again there are no medical records so how can there be peer review of medical records other than peer review of reports. Most of us read many reports from our colleagues and sometimes give feedback with regard to these. We also have peer discussion of cases but we don’t have to deal with critical incidents.
I urge you to make your views known if you agree with this analysis.