BMJ 1995;310:1348-1349 (27 May)

Editorials

Recertifying general practitioners

If not now, when? If not this, what?

In two weeks' time general practitioners from Britain's 117 local medical committees will have to make up their minds about reaccreditation--not whether it is a good idea, but whether the detailed scheme drawn up by the General Medical Services Committee fits the bill. It proposes that all general practitioners should have an educational performance review by a trained general practitioner "mentor" each year and should undergo assessment by a regional reaccreditation team every five years. This team would be accountable to a national reaccreditation council.

Although general practitioners generally support reaccreditation1 2 and both the Royal College of General Practitioners and the regional advisers in general practice have welcomed the GMSC's initiative, the proposal has already come under fire. Criticism has focused on the substantial extra workload for tutors and regional advisers, the costs, and the timing.3 4

These salvoes are unsurprising, but reaccreditation, . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Carnall, D. (1996). Summative assessment in general practice. BMJ 313: 638-639 [Full text]  
Access all current jobs at BMJ Group
Whats new online at Student BMJ
Listen to the latest BMJ Interview