Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29157254›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory.

Abigail Tazzyman, Jane Ferguson, Charlotte Hillier, Alan Boyd, John Tredinnick-Rowe, Julian Archer, Sam Regan de Bere, Kieran Walshe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 'None of Them Know Me': A Qualitative Study of the Implications of Locum Doctor Working for Patient Experience.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perceptions of people with respiratory problems on physician performance evaluation-A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The quality and safety of locum doctors: a narrative review.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Abigail TazzymanAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK. abigail.tazzyman@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-241X
Jane FergusonAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.
Charlotte HillierAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.
Alan BoydAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.
John Tredinnick-RowePlymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
Julian ArcherPlymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
Sam Regan de BerePlymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
Kieran WalsheAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-004Department of Health PR-R9-0114-11002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are legally required to demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practise in order to maintain their licence. Revalidation was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2012, constituting significant change in the regulation of doctors. The governing body, the General Medical Council (GMC), envisages that revalidation will improve patient care and safety. This potential however is, in part, dependent upon how successfully revalidation is embedded into routine practice. The aim of this study was to use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore issues contributing to or impeding the implementation of revalidation in practice.

methodsWe conducted seventy-one interviews with sixty UK policymakers and senior leaders at different points during the development and implementation of revalidation: in 2011 (n = 31), 2013 (n = 26) and 2015 (n = 14). We selected interviewees using purposeful sampling. NPT was used as a framework to enable systematic analysis across the interview sets.

resultsInitial lack of consensus over revalidation's purpose, and scepticism about its value, decreased over time as participants recognised the benefits it brought to their practice (coherence category of NPT). Though acceptance increased across time, revalidation was not seen as a legitimate part of their role by all doctors. Key individuals, notably the Responsible Officer (RO), were vital for the successful implementation of revalidation in organisations (cognitive participation category). The ease with which revalidation could be integrated into working practices varied greatly depending on the type of role a doctor held and the organisation they work for and the provision of resources was a significant variable in this (collective action category). Formal evaluation of revalidation in organisations was lacking but informal evaluation was taking place. Revalidation had not yet reached the stage where feedback was being used for improvement (reflexive monitoring category).

conclusionsRequiring all organisations to use the same revalidation model made revalidation easy to integrate into existing work for some but problematic for others. In order for revalidation to be fully embedded and successful, impeding factors, such as a lack of resources, need to be addressed.

Indexed as

AccreditationClinical CompetenceHumansPatient CarePatient SafetyPhysiciansUnited KingdomMedical regulationNormalisation process theoryPolicy implementationRevalidation

Identifiers

PMID29157254
PMCPMC5697083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.