title: Revalidation: implications for Australian anaesthetists.
abstract: 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.
authors: Specialist Anaesthetist and Pain Medicine Physician, Departments of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia.
authors: L J
authors: LJ
authors: Roberts
mesh_terms: D000776:Anesthesiology / Q000592:standards*; D001315:Australia; D002170:Canada; D002568:Certification / Q000592:standards*; D002983:Clinical Competence; D004502:Education, Medical, Continuing / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D009520:New Zealand; D014481:United States
keywords: anaesthetists; peer-review; recertification; revalidation