See this poll on: https://poll.fm/6293644/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
The survey lists examples of high risk doctors as older doctors, or those who have had previous complaints; however that statement warrants provision of evidence, otherwise the "myth " is already perpetuated that these 2 groups are high risk. In fact the reverse might be true.
There is already a considerable system of revalidation, credentialling in all public and private hospitals, professional associations , and now annual CME requirements to be met in order for a doctor to be re-registerable with AHPRA. Setting up objective clinical and theoretical re assesssment is a very costly business, as those who mount exams for GP and specialist colleges know very well. Who would pay? who would do the admin and academic work? We need our mature /experienced doctors to be doctoring, not witch-hunting or micromanaging their own. There are already ways to deal with doctors who may be impaired, e.g where a concerned patient wishes to lodge a complaint to the Board,where colleagues can enlist professional support if they have concerns about an individual. These cases are in the minority. Let us not have a vast bureaucratic process set up to screen everybody even those who don't need it. Let us improve the processes for managing the small numbers of impaired/unsafe doctors. Let us trust the high standards of the profession, where self regulation has not created monsters, but maintained standards (eg in specialist colleges) such that advanced trainees who do not meet standards are not eligible to become specialists unitl they do, in the eyes of peers. There will always be human error in the practice of medicine, and errors need to be reviewed critically, if necessary and ultimately by a court. In the interim , practice reviews by indemnity and risk management services allso serve to raise standards if required. We need time to participate in practice reviews and audits with practice enhancement in mind - the profession should not have to spend down time in proving our fitness , unless there is evidence of a loss of fitness to practise.
Please make sense ==>an exam is a questionable way of assessing a future Patel or Shipmen.
Can we agree to what is the best way to assess ourselves?
Pointing in the direction of Aircrew Recertification, a pilot who checks another pilot.
A doctor who checks another doctor Hmmm might work?
Thumbs up to Revalidation which is overdue in Aus. A one hit wonder exam at the time of entry into the profession is by no means a metric for the rest of the professional life and we know from evidence (JAMA, Lancet etc.,...) that CPD has little to no evidence on practice standards and patient outcomes. While Revalidation unfortunately does not include formal exams (unlike recertifying board exams in the US), it is a process to minimise risk of substandard practitioners and promoting public confidence. Autoregulation is a Parliamentary privilege and sadly it doesn't work as highlighted by the spectacular bungles such as the Shipman, Patel and Reeves cases. Cheers - Dr.Jay Ramanathan
The question you pose offers insufficient information to make an informed decision. Is "revalidation" more or less the same as ongoing CME based assessment, or at the other end of the spectrum, a full MBBS type examination? I believe that most do support a CME based appraisal, but if it meant that there were formal examinations then I fear that many senior doctors in particular would baulk and may be lost to the profession prematurely, whilst they are still perfectly capable of practicing appropriately in their field.