Making recommendations: appraisal activity and sufficient supporting information

This scenario looks at:

  • Appraisal activity and considering whether there is sufficient supporting information to revalidate

Scenario: appraisal activity and sufficient supporting information

Dr Taylor first revalidated at the award of his CCT, having successfully completed his training programme. During the following three years he undertook a number of locum contracts ranging from single shifts to a 12 month contract. Throughout this period his locum agency was his designated body.

Dr Taylor took up a permanent substantive post two years before his next revalidation submission date, at an organisation which became his designated body. Ten months after taking up his post he participated in a whole practice appraisal. His appraiser noted that he had completed a patient feedback exercise during one of his locum placements, and that his previous appraiser was satisfied that it met GMC requirements. However, the appraiser advised Dr Taylor that he should complete a further patient feedback exercise before he could be recommended for revalidation, and notified the responsible officer (RO) of this advice.

The appraiser explained that this was because Dr Taylor's completed feedback did not reflect the type of patients that he now sees in his substantive post although the nature of his practise is similar. Dr Taylor disputed the need for further feedback, adding that his workload pressures meant he would be unable to complete another exercise before his submission date.

The appraiser also noted that Dr Taylor's current RO had requested additional information about his practice from his previous RO, but has not yet received a response. By the time that a recommendation is due about his revalidation, this information is still outstanding.

Key points: appraisal activity and sufficient supporting information

What should the RO consider when making a recommendation?

  • If the outstanding information requested from the previous RO is material to Dr Taylor's revalidation recommendation - and how.
  • It is not appropriate to recommend deferral simply because a doctor has not completed an appraisal or collected a type of SI in their current organisations. If the doctor has met the GMC's requirements for SI and appraisal based on information drawn from previous workplaces in that revalidation cycle, this information is acceptable for revalidation and should be treated as such.
  • If Dr Taylor has met the GMC's requirements for patient feedback, based on their completed feedback exercise.
  • If a further patient feedback is requirement, how Dr Taylor will be supported to collect, discuss and reflect on it - and in what time frame.

In detail: appraisal activity and sufficient supporting information

The RO should not defer on the basis that

  • Dr Taylor's patient feedback was collected at another organisation using a different group of patients - it's not the only indicator of a doctor's practice.
  • Dr Taylor has not worked in a substantive post continuously since his last revalidation.