This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
CLINICAL LEADERSHIP


Local IT systems for revalidation – full steam ahead? T


he secretary of state has extended revalidation piloting into a second year and


the announcement has evoked a variety of reactions from key stakeholders. The revalidation support team welcomes the announcement in order to develop a clearer understanding of the outcomes of the pilots.


Some doctors cheer at the thought of this being a permanent delay. However, many trusts continue to push ahead with their plans to implement ‘local’ IT systems to manage the process.


The fact that a specific e- Portfolio based IT system for strengthened appraisal and revalidation is required is widely acknowledged. There is no other


an even easier decision to make?


Forward thinking trusts do not want to lose momentum on the progress they have made and in many cases the improvements already taking place through the implementation of a ‘local’ IT system.


way to cost effectively collate and manage all required elements of the revalidation cycle in one place. So why continue to look for a system when everything is up in the air?


Full steam ahead Consider the ongoing requirement to tighten up and strengthen the quality of the annual appraisal process and the answer to this question is simple.


If a trust can implement an


IT system which allows it to manage and streamline the appraisal process, in a way that is neither cumbersome nor time consuming for practitioner or appraiser, why wouldn’t it do so? If it also protects the security of data, is flexible and scalable to meet the future needs of revalidation, surely this makes it


FOR MORE INFORMATION


T: 020 7837 2690 E: medmonds@premierit.com W: www.premierit.com/software


The fact that they will be ahead of the game when revalidation rolls out with a system that is flexible enough to incorporate updates and enhancements released by the RST and the GMC puts forward thinking trusts in a very powerful position for a successful revalidation implementation.


34 nhe


Jul/Aug 10


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100