CHECKS aimed at identifying poor-performing doctors will do nothing to help find or stop them, according to a poll of more than 5600 doctors.
More than 80% of hospital doctors and 67% of GPs also pointed to variations in care, saying there are certain doctors they would not want to treat their friends and family.
The survey by doctors.net.uk was carried out among more than 4600 hospital doctors and a further 1000 GPs. It was released ahead of the anniversary on Monday of serial killer Harold Shipman's death.
Doctors were asked whether revalidation - the process of appraising doctors - would help identify and deal with those who are unfit to practise. Some 53% of hospitals disagreed it would (33% disagreed and a further 20% strongly disagreed). Meanwhile, 22% agreed revalidation would help identify and tackle problem doctors, while the rest neither agreed or disagreed or did not know.
Among GPs, 60% disagreed the plans for revalidation would help to identify and deal with doctors who are not fit to practise (32% disagreed and a further 28% strongly disagreed).
Some 86% of hospital doctors also agreed there are variations in care and that "there are certain doctors that I would not want to treat friends and family".
Dr Tim Ringrose, chief executive of doctors.net.uk, said: "GPs and hospital doctors seek to uphold the highest possible standards in care, and their willingness to be totally frank about variations in quality demonstrates how keen they are to see continual monitoring and improvement.
"However, while revalidation should help to address such concerns, there is widespread scepticism about its effectiveness."
Shipman, who was 57 when he died, was jailed for life in January 2000 for murdering 15 patients.
Shipman's conviction led to scrutiny regarding the professional regulation of doctors. A new system of revalidation is now being implemented.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article