Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

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

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

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Medical 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Initial 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).

Conclusions

Requiring 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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Chamberlain JM. Medical regulation, fitness to practice and revalidation. Policy Press: University of Bristol; 2015.CrossRef Chamberlain JM. Medical regulation, fitness to practice and revalidation. Policy Press: University of Bristol; 2015.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Irvine DH. The doctor's tale: professionalism and public trust. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2003. Irvine DH. The doctor's tale: professionalism and public trust. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2003.
5.
go back to reference Archer J, Regan de Bere S, Nunn S, Clark J, Corrigan O. "No one has yet properly articulated what we are trying to achieve": a discourse analysis of interviews with revalidation policy leaders in the United Kingdom. Acad Med. 2015;90(1):88–93.CrossRefPubMed Archer J, Regan de Bere S, Nunn S, Clark J, Corrigan O. "No one has yet properly articulated what we are trying to achieve": a discourse analysis of interviews with revalidation policy leaders in the United Kingdom. Acad Med. 2015;90(1):88–93.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Finch TL, Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, McColl E, Steen IN, May CR. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–8.CrossRef Finch TL, Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, McColl E, Steen IN, May CR. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: measure development based on normalization process theory (NoMAD): study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jacobs K. Hybridisation or polarisation: doctors and accounting in the UK. Germany Italy Financ Account Manag. 2005;21(2):135–62.CrossRef Jacobs K. Hybridisation or polarisation: doctors and accounting in the UK. Germany Italy Financ Account Manag. 2005;21(2):135–62.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Degeling P, Zhang K, Coyle B, Xu L, Meng Q, Qu J, Hill M. Clinicians and the governance of hospitals: a cross-cultural perspective on relations between profession and management. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(3):757–75.CrossRefPubMed Degeling P, Zhang K, Coyle B, Xu L, Meng Q, Qu J, Hill M. Clinicians and the governance of hospitals: a cross-cultural perspective on relations between profession and management. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(3):757–75.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Shaw K, Cassel CK, Black C, Levinson W. Shared medical regulation in a time of increasing calls for accountability and transparency: comparison of recertification in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2009;302(18):2008–14.CrossRefPubMed Shaw K, Cassel CK, Black C, Levinson W. Shared medical regulation in a time of increasing calls for accountability and transparency: comparison of recertification in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2009;302(18):2008–14.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Chamberlain JM. Doctoring medical governance: medical self-regulation in transition. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2009. Chamberlain JM. Doctoring medical governance: medical self-regulation in transition. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2009.
12.
go back to reference Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.CrossRefPubMed Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Rosenburg S, Mosca J. Breaking down the barriers to organizational change. Int J Manag. Info Syst. 2011;15(3):139–46. Rosenburg S, Mosca J. Breaking down the barriers to organizational change. Int J Manag. Info Syst. 2011;15(3):139–46.
14.
go back to reference Eaton M. Making improvements stick: the importance of people over process. Hum Resour Manag Int Dig. 2010;18(5):30–5.CrossRef Eaton M. Making improvements stick: the importance of people over process. Hum Resour Manag Int Dig. 2010;18(5):30–5.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Gardener D, Pierce JL, Dunham R. Management and organizational behavior: an integrated perspective. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing; 2002. Gardener D, Pierce JL, Dunham R. Management and organizational behavior: an integrated perspective. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing; 2002.
16.
go back to reference May CR, Finch T, Ballini L, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Murray E, Treweek S, Rapley T. Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral May CR, Finch T, Ballini L, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Murray E, Treweek S, Rapley T. Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Devlin AM, McGee-Lennon M, O'Donnell CA, Bouamrane MM, Agbakoba R, O'Connor S, Grieve E, Finch T, Wyke S, Watson N, et al. Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the Dallas program in the United Kingdom. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):48–59.CrossRefPubMed Devlin AM, McGee-Lennon M, O'Donnell CA, Bouamrane MM, Agbakoba R, O'Connor S, Grieve E, Finch T, Wyke S, Watson N, et al. Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the Dallas program in the United Kingdom. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):48–59.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, Steen IN, McColl EM, Dickinson, C, Rapley T. Nomad: Implementation measure based on Normalization Process Theory. 2015; Available in: http://www.normalizationprocess.org. Accessed 24 Mar 2016. Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, Mair FS, Murray E, Treweek S, Steen IN, McColl EM, Dickinson, C, Rapley T. Nomad: Implementation measure based on Normalization Process Theory. 2015; Available in: http://​www.​normalizationpro​cess.​org. Accessed 24 Mar 2016.
19.
go back to reference May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–14.CrossRef May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–14.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA, Mair FS, MacFarlane AA. Qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):1–13.CrossRef McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA, Mair FS, MacFarlane AA. Qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):1–13.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage; 2013. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. London: Sage; 2013.
23.
go back to reference Dedoose. Dedoose version 4.5, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC; 2013. http://www.dedoose.com. Dedoose. Dedoose version 4.5, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC; 2013. http://​www.​dedoose.​com.
25.
go back to reference Gallacher K, May CR, Montori VM, Mair FS. Understanding patients' experiences of treatment burden in chronic heart failure using normalization process theory. Ann Family Med. 2011;9(3):235–43.CrossRef Gallacher K, May CR, Montori VM, Mair FS. Understanding patients' experiences of treatment burden in chronic heart failure using normalization process theory. Ann Family Med. 2011;9(3):235–43.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Nordmark S, Zingmark K, Lindberg I. Process evaluation of discharge planning implementation in healthcare using normalization process theory. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(48). Nordmark S, Zingmark K, Lindberg I. Process evaluation of discharge planning implementation in healthcare using normalization process theory. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(48).
27.
go back to reference Tierney E, McEvoy R, O'Reilly-de Brún M, de Brún T, Okonkwo E, Rooney M, Dowrick C, Rogers A, Macfarlane AA. Critical analysis of the implementation of service user involvement in primary care research and health service development using normalization process theory. Health Expect. 2016;19(3):501–15.CrossRefPubMed Tierney E, McEvoy R, O'Reilly-de Brún M, de Brún T, Okonkwo E, Rooney M, Dowrick C, Rogers A, Macfarlane AA. Critical analysis of the implementation of service user involvement in primary care research and health service development using normalization process theory. Health Expect. 2016;19(3):501–15.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory
Authors
Abigail Tazzyman
Jane Ferguson
Charlotte Hillier
Alan Boyd
John Tredinnick-Rowe
Julian Archer
Sam Regan de Bere
Kieran Walshe
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2710-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue