Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

NMC releases draft guidance and standards for revalidation


Provisional standards for the forthcoming system of competency checks that will allow nurses and midwives to renew their registration every three years have been released by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The new system of revalidation replaces the current process of post registration education and practice (PREP) and comes into effect on 31 December.

It introduces additional standards that state registrants must gain feedback on their practice, reflect upon the code of conduct, and obtain confirmation from a third party that they have met all requirements.

According to NMC council papers containing draft proposals on how revalidation will work, nurses and midwives will have to obtain “at least five pieces of practice-related feedback”, which it advises are from a variety of sources.

This feedback can be directly related to individual performance or it can be about a registrant’s team, unit, ward or organisation, state the proposals.

“Wherever possible we recommend that the third party you obtain confirmation from is an NMC registrant. It is helpful if they have worked with you… but this is not essential”

Draft revalidation guidance

Meanwhile, registrants must also record a minimum of five written reflections on the code of conduct – which has recently been updated – on their continuing professional development and on practice-related feedback.

This should be accompanied by evidence that the nurse or midwife has had a discussion with another NMC registrant about their reflections and wider professional development.

Registrants must also provide evidence of third party confirmation that they have met all revalidation standards. The guidance states the person providing this does not have to be an NMC registrant and suggests this would usually be a line manager.

“Wherever possible we recommend that the third party you obtain confirmation from is an NMC registrant,” states the guidance.

“It is helpful if they have worked with you or have a similar scope of practice, but this is not essential,” it adds.

As part of revalidation, nurses and midwives will continue to have to complete at least 450 hours of practice in the three years prior to renewing their registration.

They will also continue to maintain a portfolio of work showing evidence of continuing professional development. However, the minimum number of CPD hours has been increased from 35 to 40.

Registrants will also have to show they have indemnity insurance and provide a health and character declaration, state the proposals.

The draft guidance will be used by a series of pilot organisations – including employers, a school of nursing and a trade union - that are testing the new system this spring. It will then be evaluated before a final decision on the system and guidance is made by the NMC.


Readers' comments (41)

  • When is someone going to explain CLEARLY AND CONCISELY how nurse registrants in non-clinical roles (and there are very many) will meet revalidation requirements?

    These professionals are not hands-on clinicians but undertake key roles that greatly influence patient care. They maintain their educational requirements to meet the need of their roles.

    It is impossible to expect every nurse registrant in the country to clamber onto a 'back to nursing' course to suddenly become 'hands on' again in order to meet NMC's ridiculous requirements. When working full time as a non-clinical nurse registrant, how can one be expected to also run around fitting in bank/agency shifts to areas where one does not belong and have no relationship with/knowledge of the patient (very dangerous ground governance wise).

    Why can't we let clinicians be just that and those who are not - then celebrate nurse role diversity.

    As long as CPD requirements and professional development is met (for the role individuals are in), appraisals are timely and governance structures are tight to ensure patients are safe, then the clinical/non-clinical job role of the nurse registrant in Revalidation surely should not cause nurses to worry.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 26-Jan-2015 9:15 pm

    all those in charge of the NMC for a start, then there is those at the head of the RCN and all the CEOs or directors of nursing across the country!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have had clinical supervisoion for a number of years, so it's not just midwives. I am in a non clinical role, so these reflections made be difficult, but if it's anything like other Nmc documents there will be so much room for interpretation. I also have no line manager that is a nurse.. It's a physio so my supervision is important to meet this need. Need to read the full guidelines

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm an independent practitioner and I, along with my husband and son, have a small, family business. I don't have banks of people upon whom I can call to verify what I have done and I very much doubt my clients will be over eager to add more work to their already heavy workload in order to verify me either. I already pay for my own CPD and I spend a lot of my spare time trawling through journals to make sure I'm as up to date as I can be. These new guidelines will mean a lot more work plus the difficulty of finding someone who can verify that I've actually done what I say I've done. Thank goodness I strongly recommended that neither of my children went into nursing. It's not nursing any more, we seem to be turning into desk-bound paper-pushers :(

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • if you qualify as a member of a profession and are accepted on the register of practitioners one would accept such individuals are responsible and capable of self regulation and attend to their own further educational and training needs which, where relevant to their employment, should be supported by the NHS.

    get rid of the QCC, adopt a recognised system of international or European quality standards and certification and self regulate. this has the advantage of making every single individual and the teams in which they work responsible for the own standards which gives people autonomy, better team working and motivation to provide the best possible services and care. peer reviews and regular evaluations will show any flaws in the system and those not up to scatch with the relevant support should be moved to another area where they may have a chance to perform better and more safely and if they still cannot meet the standards their contract must be terminated without further delay. it goes without saying that a collegial working environment with open and excellent communications is essential at all levels and every step of the way which relies on building up interpersonal relationships of trust. any other functioning which currently seems to beset the UK heath and social welfare systems is totally unhealthy and must not be tolerated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • count me out mateys. I think after a long and successful career nurses have proven their abilities to fulfil all of the criteria. many older GPs are also now retiring early to avoid this new scheme of validation causing a further drain to the flailing NHS!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • NMC......mmmmm......better not say it,maybe pay for some more cushions to stop their backsides getting sore whilst they are sitting in 1st class on the way to the next meeting to tell each other how good they are

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 4 years to go and I am out of the profession that has been beyond damaged by a government and a faceless beauracratic professional body that just sucks everything out of us.
    Just imagine more paperwork and an increase in fees just for the privilige of it....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reading the recommendations it seems unthinkable that every nurse will have to fulfil them every three years, on top of a full working week, and whatever social commitments (family, children, other dependents e.t.c) that they have. However as the NMC is obviously just trying to justify its existence and high cost by introducing something 'new and far reaching', I have no doubt that when it comes to implementation we will find that keeping a few notes about what we have done and having a yearly (or even three yearly) review with a line manager, will be sufficient. Otherwise, what are they going to do, fire everyone? Feedback is a very tricky thing to obtain impartially and can be embarrassing having to ask colleagues for. It is about time that Nurses were given a little respect for their intelligence, knowledge and clinical skills and surely their employers should be the ones to ensure they are kept up to date and fit to practice in their chosen sphere, which is surely the point. The government know only too well that the NHS is held together by a thread called 'nursing staff' that is stretched so tightly it is now very thin, pull it too hard and it will fall apart!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In response to some of the above comments: in an ideal world, clinicians would self-regulate, and that idea will always continue to be a gold standard. However, that is not good governance- people do need to be accountable to the public, and safety is paramount. The only way of ensuring this is by some sort of reflection and monitoring of standards. This will protect clinicians because the employers will be obliged to make sure it happens and will be accountable for it.

    As for clinical supervision: it's a good idea for nurses, but it fell by the wayside pretty quickly because it was optional. It's good that it is still happening in some places, but really, how common is it?

    - Unlike the almost defunct midwifery supervision, which has been compulsory up to now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.