PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15608824

Standards and revalidation or recertification.

Abstract

Patients want doctors who are competent, respectful, honest and able to communicate with them. This is patient-centred professionalism. In the United Kingdom, it is being embedded into practice by the General Medical Council (GMC) through medical regulation in a partnership between the public and doctors. The foundation is a national code of professional standards - Good Medical Practice - that has been tied to medical licensure to secure doctors' continuing compliance whilst they are in active practice. The revalidation of a doctor's license to practise is the means of achieving such compliance. Revalidation requires that specialists and general practitioners must be able to demonstrate - on a regular basis - that they are keeping themselves up to date and remain fit to practise in their chosen field. It begins in April 2005. For revalidation, doctors' performance, conduct and health will be assessed against the headings of Good Medical Practice. Doctors will collect a folder of illustrative evidence that will form the basis of an annual appraisal carried out at the workplace by an appropriately trained colleague. The results of these annual appraisals will be submitted to the GMC for a revalidation decision every 5 years. Where doctors' performance or conduct gives cause for concern, they may have to undergo a further searching assessment under the GMC's Fitness to Practise Procedures. Under these procedures the GMC can order a doctor to retrain or, if circumstances warrant it, to stop practising.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Irvine. 2004. Standards and revalidation or recertification.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15608824/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗