Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Chan, Zenobia C Y 2012. Medical misconduct in Hong Kong: implications for medical education around the world. Medical Education, Vol. 46, Issue. 10, p. 1009.


Competition and compromise in negotiating the new governance of medical performance: the clinical governance and revalidation policies in the UK

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 July 2009

This article explores the development of two policies for the governance of medical performance in the UK: the Department of Health's (DH) clinical governance policy and the medical profession's revalidation policy. After discussing the institutional context in which each of these policies emerged, we examine how and why they were constructed. While the clinical governance policy was in large part a swift reaction to high-profile cases of medical misconduct in the late 1990s, revalidation was the profession's response to the politicisation of its self-regulatory apparatus. The profession took notably longer than the DH to piece together its policy as a result of internal disagreements about the role clinical standards should play in the evaluation of a doctor's fitness to practice. Following the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry in late 2004, the government stepped in and eventually introduced legislation that modifies the profession's policy. With clinical governance, the state – via arms-length regulatory organisations – has entered the clinic in new ways, strengthening hierarchy-based forms of governance in the governance of medical performance. However, the success of hierarchical forms of governance is likely to be restricted by the lack of a clear system of sanctioning and the state's reliance on a lengthy chain of command in the National Health Service for the implementation of clinical standards.

Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: Brian Salter, Director, Global Biopolitics Research Group, Centre for Biomedicine and Society, School of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Strand Bridge House, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK. Email:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

D. Coburn , R. Susan B. Ivy (1997), ‘Decline vs. retention of medical power through restratification: An examination of the Ontario case’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 19: 122.

S. Harrison and G. Dowswell (2002), ‘Autonomy and bureaucratic accountability in primary care: what English general practitioners say’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 24: 208226.

S. Harrison , M. Moran , and B. Wood (2002), ‘Policy emergence and policy convergence: the case of “scientific-bureaucratic medicine” in the USA and UK’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4: 124.

R. Klein (1990), ‘The state and the profession: the politics of the double bed’, British Medical Journal, 301: 700702.

S. Rappolt (1997), ‘Clinical guidelines and the fate of medical autonomy in Ontario’, Social Science & Medicine, 44: 977987.

M.A. Rodwin (2001), ‘The politics of evidence-based medicine’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 26: 439445.

M. Stacey (1992), Regulating British Medicine: The General Medical Council, London: John Wiley.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *