Revalidation: the catalyst for change in continuing professional development?

Remarkably, only five years ago, hospital specialists were under no formal obligation to record participation in Continuing Medical Education (CME). No one seriously doubted that such education took place, but the system had never been challenged. In recent years, and with apparently ever increasing pace, all this is changing. Traditional, didactic, lecture based teaching of undergraduates is slowly vanishing from many undergraduate curricula. Postgraduate hospital training has been brought into line with Europe so that, within 7 years of full registration, it is theoretically possible to become a consultant. The Royal Colleges were charged with developing and monitoring a structured system of CME and chose to use the "points" system of which there was experience elsewhere. Around 70% of surgeons returned their annual CME forms and almost all met the agreed minimum points total. As a meaningful educational exercise which impacted favourably on patient care the points system was impossible to defend vigorously, and was ignored by an important minority. More recently still, our entire profession has been exposed to regular and fundamental criticism. There was a real risk that we would lose the right to self regulation. The GMC has now announced that every doctor will be required to undergo a process of appraisal that will lead to revalidation, allowing the doctor to remain on the national register. A full consultative process is now in place, with the Royal Colleges being required to implement a new system of annual review which will allow profiling of every surgical practice. While it is possible react to these changes with a combination of resentment and paranoia, the profession should grasp this opportunity for change. The sensible introduction of personal portfolios should allow us to maintain and improve standards of care, and allow us to demonstrate these standards to our peers, our employers and our patients. We may yet look back on clinical governance and revalidation as the catalysts which brought about constructive change to a potentially complacent profession.