Who examines the examiners?

At first sight, mandatory recertification smacks of yet another bureaucratic process in a profession already struggling with manpower shortage and low morale. In the grand scheme of things, it's really not such a bad idea. Many of us responsible physicians are constantly 'recertifying.' The question is, what's the best way to formalize the process?

In an already overburdened schedule, yet another exam with no great relevance to clinical practice is certainly no substitute for experience, 'emotional' intelligence and technical skills. Let's face it, all these are what really make a good physician � not book knowledge alone.

And this needs to be seriously considered when formulating what type of exam should be devised. Also, how frequently should such an ideal exam be conducted? Some are suggesting every five years, others every 10 years. Anything more frequent would be impractical � assuming that the powers that be are seriously interested in the wise practicality of all this!

And, finally, who's going to set the exam up? One hopes that they too are recertified!

At the end of the day, medicine is not just a profession but a vocation. We take great individual responsibility for what we do. The way we practise, the confidence and trust our patients put in us, and of course, the impact of our approach are what matter most. In this context, a sweeping mandatory recertification process is an insult to our integrity and intelligence.

� Dr Arni Sekar, Ottawa

Dr Sekar's commentary was inspired by the article "Should you be forced to keep up to date?" in NRM Vol 1 No 16 Sept 15. We'd love to know what you think about mandatory recertification; please write us at [email protected] or fax 514-397-0228.