At 14:34 18/12/2004, you wrote:
>From: "Julian Bradley" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 2:22 PM
>
> >
> > The combination of a knowledge test and a gamma GT would I suggest be a
> > reasonable combination of screening tests to pick up >90% of doctors with
> > serious problems.
>
>Gamma GT may be a bit non specific and is only raised in a proportion of
>people with alcohol problems.
Nothing is 100% sensitive or 100% specific. Regular tests are only a
supplement to those mechanisms that already exist - but don't work well enough.
However the doctors with "alcohol problems" who have a normal gamma GT,
have passed a knowledge test, have not been prosecuted for any criminal
activity, and who have not been complained about in a way that has brought
their problem to light would, I suspect be a group that while not low risk,
were not the highest risk.
I do laugh at the underpants suggestion as I did laugh at the appraisal
route the GMC came up with. It did nothing to detect under-performing
doctors and was a manifest farce.
Exams are widely used, and we better do some thinking about what kind of
exam might have some value before we get something as ludicrous as the
appraisal process being used for revalidation foisted on us.
FWIW the GPC response so far seems fairly reasonable, especially given the
nature of the political organ from which it emanates.
Julian
|