Objective To explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) on the feasibility of collecting supporting information for the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) revalidation portfolio and mapping of this evidence to the General Medical Practice framework for proposed UK medical re-licensing.
Design Cross sectional study with a questionnaire.
Setting One inner city and one mixed urban/rural primary care organisation in the West Midlands, England and one rural primary care organisation in Wales.
Participants 51/69 GPs who submitted a revalidation portfolio from November 2009 to February 2010.
Results The majority of GPs considered the majority of work based supporting information was feasible to collect within a 5 year revalidation cycle; most concerns were expressed about providing evidence for extended practice, learning credits, and patient satisfaction and colleague feedback surveys (59%, 63%, 72%, and 77%, respectively, of GPs considered it feasible to collect this evidence) due to workload time constraints and lack of automatic access to evidence from others, which differed by GP work role. Two-thirds of participants (65%) stated that the submission of a portfolio of evidence was a feasible component of GP revalidation, reporting reservations on the appropriateness of patient and colleague feedback surveys and extended practice (55%, 57%, and 59% respectively) to provide objective evidence. GPs requested further clarity on the evidence mapping process.
Conclusion Overall, GPs reported a positive response to the RCGP revalidation proposals. Concerns were focused on collecting the newer types of supporting information and the ability of GPs non-principals to collect this evidence. GP revalidation training and preparation is required.
- medical education, training
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This study was funded by the Royal College of General Practitioners on behalf of the Revalidation Support Team. The opinions expressed by the authors are theirs alone and do not represent the opinions of supporting organisations.
Competing interests Two of the authors are GPs who will have to undergo revalidation.
Ethical approval Warwick Medical School Biomedical Ethics Committee (BREC), University of Warwick.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.