The LDA welcomes revalidation if
it is a process of keeping all doctors up-to
date to meet with the standards of Good
||It must be noted
that the need for revalidation came as a result
of the incompetence of highly placed substantive
doctors with impressive logbook numbers (though
unimpressive outcomes). The process must apply
equally in all respects to all categories
of doctors, but must take into account differing
needs and circumstances of individual doctors.
||We do not believe
that revalidation will prevent another Bristol
or Shipman case. The causes of those are more
to do with the culture of secrecy and coverups
in the profession than competence. Unless
attitudes and cultures drastically change,
this process will not protect the public.
||During the consultation
phase it has emerged that the GMC lacks adequate
knowledge of locums and how they work.
||It must be recognised
that locums and doctors with atypical careers
do not receive the same facilities for training,
study leave and CPD as substantive NHS doctors.
||It must be remembered
that a doctor needs to be a safe doctor for
patients regardless of career pathway. If
fitness to practise is demonstrated by a safe
and competent track record, revalidation should
not be denied.
must not become a tool to compel NHS service
for doctors. Qualifying as a doctor and working
and functioning as one is not the same as
working full-time in the NHS in the UK.
processes should respect the rights of locums
and the duties of other medical professionals
must be exercised according to the principles
of proportionality, fairness and respect for
will not work without adequate funding. The
crises resulting from the hasty implementation
of calmanisation without funding should be
a sufficient lesson for all.
||Locums and atypical
doctors must not be victimised on account
of systems failures, and the denial of opportunities.
||If a doctor has
made effort to keep up-to-date, as shown by
his portfolio, and has a good and safe track
record, revalidation must not be refused.
||We believe substantive
full-time doctors are taken for granted. Regulation
of these must be more rigorous than hitherto.
Revalidation of these must not be regarded
as a fato accompli and that of locums a presumptuous
||The Audit Commission
report clearly stated that the vast majority
of locums are good and excellent doctors.
There is an unfounded prejudice against locum
doctors which must now cease.