Literature DB >> 11073518

GMC's proposals for revalidation would not be accurate, economical, or fair.

R Wakeford.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11073518      PMCID: PMC1118967     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


× No keyword cloud information.
  4 in total

Review 1.  Revalidation in the United Kingdom: general principles based on experience in general practice.

Authors:  L Southgate; M Pringle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-30

2.  Educational portfolios in the assessment of general practice trainers: reliability of assessors.

Authors:  J Pitts; C Coles; P Thomas
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.251

3.  Portfolios in continuing medical education--effective and efficient?

Authors:  N J Mathers; M C Challis; A C Howe; N J Field
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.251

4.  Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance.

Authors:  P G Ramsey; M D Wenrich; J D Carline; T S Inui; E B Larson; J P LoGerfo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-04-07       Impact factor: 56.272

  4 in total
  4 in total

1.  GMC no longer favours folder of evidence for revalidation.

Authors:  S Brearley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-31

2.  GMC's proposals for revalidation. Purpose of revalidation process must be agreed on.

Authors:  D Newble
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-02-10

3.  Revalidation: the purpose needs to be clear.

Authors:  Tim van Zwanenberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-20

4.  Revalidation: a critical perspective.

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Geoff Wong
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.386

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.