Australian anaesthetists and their professional organisations must remain engaged in the national debate about revalidation to ensure new processes are workable for their practice.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Limited evidence on revalidation components warrants cautious adoption; leaves open optimal design and efficacy for anaesthetists.
In early 2015, the Medical Board of Australia commissioned research into international revalidation models and what might be applicable for Australia. This review examines the implications for Australian anaesthetists. What problem is revalidation seeking to address? What is happening in similar countries? Is there an issue with Australian anaesthetists' performance? Isn't continuing professional development enough? Could the Medical Board target known high-risk doctors? What is the evidence for the benefit of revalidation? How is and how should the profession be involved? Revalidation has been introduced in other developed countries. It commonly involves continuing professional development, feedback from colleagues, co-workers and patients, clinical audit and peer review. Although its evidence base is limited, the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom is evaluating its revalidation system, which should provide useful guidance for other countries. Australian anaesthetists and their professional organisations must remain informed about, and engaged in, the national debate about revalidation, to ensure that any new process is workable for Australian anaesthesia practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lisa Roberts (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: