Revalidation and/or recertification are processes whereby doctors demonstrate on a regular basis that they are up to date and fit to practice with the help of a portfolio of evidence or supporting information that can include continuous professional development, peer and patient feedback, quality improvement or audit and significant events [1]. They represent a shift towards a broader culture of accountability and a proactive approach. Medical revalidation was introduced in the UK in 2012 and is similar to New Zealand’s practicing certificate and recertification and the American maintenance of licensure and certification [2]. Revalidation and recertification schemes seek to improve patient care by the ongoing review of individual medical practice [2].

Such processes, considered predominantly summative, are underpinned by a progressive, intrinsically motivated ambition to define and drive up quality standards [1]. As professionals engaged with implementation and experienced the realities of revalidation in practice in the UK, stakeholders found that dealing with concerns about poor practice (professional regulation) and seeking to improve professional standards (professionalism) were complementary processes [1].

Whilst these schemes are more generic, there are currently no established revalidation or recertification schemes for pediatric endoscopists.

The goals of recredentialing or recertification in GI endoscopy are to ensure continued clinical competency, promote continuous quality improvement, and maintain patient safety [3]. Ensuring ongoing competency in GI endoscopy in adults requires monitoring of key performance indicators (KPIs), reviewing outcome data and adverse event rates and evidence of engagement in educational and clinical activities with a focus on continuous quality improvement [4]. There are unlikely to be opportunities to directly observe practice for independent endoscopists and therefore quality assurance is dependent on surrogates of performance such as KPIs. Upskilling and maintenance of competence for practicing endoscopists should be directed at technical (motor skills), cognitive (knowledge and recognition), and integrative skills, such as leadership and communication [5].

There is little in the pediatric literature on quality indicators or auditable KPIs tailored to pediatric endoscopy practice which can form the foundation of quality assured practice and can then be linked to a process that ensures accountability and improves and maintains professional standards of pediatric endoscopists. Auditing against an agreed set of KPIs and reviewing practice can help reduce variation in practice and standards between individual endoscopists and units.

The successful national pilot of a pediatric endoscopy Global Rating Scale (GRS) in the UK [6] is the first step towards a pediatric endoscopy quality improvement (QI) tool. Regular engagement with a QI tool like the P‐GRS will help embed measures included in this tool, such as regular review of auditable outcomes and quality standards for individual endoscopists, use of electronic endoscopy reporting systems to capture immediate procedural and performance data to inform individual endoscopist appraisal and professional revalidation requirements and help identify areas for any development, recording and reviewing adverse events with appropriate actions undertaken, etc. in clinical practice. In time, this will lead to a systematic approach to quality assurance.

There is likely to be scepticism about such processes and practical difficulties around resources but experience with medical revalidation in the UK suggests that normalization and familiarization with the process and the acknowledgment and experience of the benefits gradually help embed the process [7].

A formal process of certification and assessment of competence has been adopted for pediatric endoscopists (www.thejag.org.uk) but there remains a need to develop a robust and clear process for monitoring of KPIs relevant to pediatric practice, thus ensuring performance of a high‐quality endoscopic examination and maintenance of endoscopic proficiency. Such processes are likely to drive up clinical standards and ensure all services provide high‐quality and safe pediatric endoscopy care.