That development suggests a more targeted approach to professional development. Rather than relying solely on experts choosing from a general selection of CPD subjects, MedCo can now direct attention towards areas where its monitoring identifies recurring problems.
Quality Assurance Is Becoming More Closely Linked to Training.
MedCo has long stated that maintaining the independence and quality of medical reports forms a central part of its role. What has changed is the way its training programme can respond to information gathered through quality assessment.
The connection became clearer in its guidance for the 2026/27 CPD year. Experts must still complete six hours of annual MedCo CPD between 1 June and 31 May, but MedCo has confirmed that at least one mandatory module will also form part of the year. These mandatory modules may cover legislative changes or significant medico-legal reporting issues and sit in addition to the standard six-hour requirement.
MedCo has also told MROs and Authorised Users that future mandatory modules will address common themes emerging from quality assessments and audits.
That is the more significant development for experts. Training is no longer simply about maintaining general knowledge. It can increasingly respond to weaknesses that MedCo sees across real reports and working practices.
Quality Assessments Are Feeding Back Into the System.
MedCo’s Expert Quality Assessment programme gives some indication of how this approach may work in practice.
Its February 2026 Board minutes reported that several expert quality reviews were underway and that follow-up assessments of experts previously identified as requiring improvement showed better report quality. MedCo was also monitoring areas including case-data uploads, same-day report completion and practising-address records.
Earlier Board minutes also recorded plans to communicate common findings from expert quality assessments and confirmed that MedCo continuously analyses search, selection and uploaded case information to identify unusual patterns requiring investigation.
The important point is that quality assurance is not taking place separately from education. Findings from assessments can now influence the subjects that experts must revisit through training.
For an expert who has worked in medico-legal reporting for many years, this may feel different from conventional CPD. Experience alone does not necessarily protect against recurring reporting habits, particularly where requirements change or the same weakness appears repeatedly across reports.
Completing Six Hours Is No Longer the Whole Requirement.
The distinction between annual CPD and mandatory modules deserves particular attention.
For the 2026/27 academic year, MedCo requires six hours of CPD. Experts can choose from a range of modules to meet those hours, although MedCo advises against repeatedly selecting the same material and says its Education and Training Committee will monitor this.
Mandatory modules operate differently. When MedCo introduces one, experts must complete it even if they have already satisfied their annual six-hour requirement.
This changes the practical meaning of CPD compliance. An expert can no longer assume that reaching six hours means their training obligations have finished for the year.
MedCo also has the ability to set shorter deadlines for mandatory modules. The February 2026 Quality Assurance course illustrates the point clearly: experts had only four weeks to complete it.
For experts who undertake medico-legal work alongside a busy clinical practice, keeping track of MedCo communications and training accounts therefore becomes more important.
The Consequences of Missing Training Are Practical.
Mandatory training is not simply educational guidance. It directly affects an expert’s ability to continue receiving MedCo instructions.
MedCo states that experts must maintain their CPD to remain accredited and available for selection through its system. Failure to complete the annual requirement results in suspension, and experts who fail to address the outstanding CPD within six months can ultimately be withdrawn from MedCo.
The first mandatory Quality Assurance module followed an even more immediate approach, with suspension applying after the four-week completion period until the expert completed the course.
That makes monitoring training requirements part of ordinary professional administration rather than something to consider only near the end of the CPD year.
MROs and Authorised Users also have a role. MedCo has specifically reminded them to check an expert’s operational status before giving instructions.
What Does This Mean for the Quality of Reports?
The more interesting question is whether mandatory training will change reporting practice rather than simply increase compliance.
A module can remind an expert about standards, but improvement needs to appear in the report itself. If quality assessments repeatedly identify a particular issue, the purpose of targeted training should be to reduce that problem in future reports.
That may encourage experts to look more critically at their own established reporting habits. A report can be clinically reasonable yet still contain weaknesses in its reasoning, presentation or handling of evidence. Repeated use of familiar templates can also make those weaknesses difficult for the author to notice.
MedCo’s follow-up quality assessments are therefore relevant. Its February Board minutes recorded overall improvement among experts who had previously been flagged, suggesting that review and feedback can lead to changes in report quality.
Mandatory training adds another route for spreading those lessons more widely when the same themes appear across multiple assessments.
This Is Specifically an England and Wales Development.
Unlike many broader medico-legal subjects, this topic does not transfer directly across the UK, South Africa, United States and Australia.
MedCo operates within the road traffic injury reporting framework in England and Wales, including first fixed-cost medical reports for relevant low-value soft tissue injury claims. Its accreditation and CPD requirements therefore apply specifically within that system.
Other authorities have their own expert evidence, professional development and quality requirements, but they should not be described as operating under MedCo rules.
For experts working within the MedCo system, however, the direction is becoming clearer. Accreditation increasingly involves more than completing an initial course and accumulating annual CPD hours. MedCo is using quality assessments, monitoring and targeted mandatory education as connected parts of the same process.
The practical message is not that experts should expect constant additional training. MedCo says mandatory modules will be kept to a minimum. The more important change is that when recurring quality issues emerge, MedCo now has a mechanism for requiring every expert to address them.
That moves CPD closer to the reports being produced in practice, which is likely to be the real significance of the new quality assurance focus.
