Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Niall Dickson: 'The GMC accepts there is a lot more to do'

The chief executive of the GMC explains how the body is improving fitness-to-practise regulations

In their recent article in Pulse, Drs Lees and Williams highlighted the impact of GMC investigations on doctors, following research by Bourne et al published in BMJ Open last week. This is an important issue, and one which we are already addressing, but we accept it is an area where more can be done.

Bourne et al looked at the responses from nearly 8000 doctors who had been investigated by various organisations, the vast majority by local NHS bodies. Unsurprisingly it found that levels of stress were higher among the 374 doctors who had been referred to the GMC.

Being referred to a national regulator is bound to be stressful - it is hard to see how that can be avoided and it is right that doctors should be accountable for their actions. But we should do what we can to minimise the trauma - that is one reason why we are exploring consensual disposal and why we are doing everything we can to speed up our processes.

That is also why, over the last few years, we have been doing everything we can to show that the system is fair, to speed up the process at every stage and provide support for both doctors and patients who find themselves involved in our investigations.

Drs Lees and Williams are right to point out that a lot of the concerns raised with the GMC are closed without a doctor ever facing action. Many of the complaints we receive could and should be resolved at a local level, with the GMC handling just the most serious concerns. We have made changes to how we deal with less serious complaints, so that we can focus on those issues that might require us to take action on a doctor’s registration.  

But contrary to what was suggested, we do not ‘welcome’ the huge rise in complaints to the GMC - not least because there is nothing we can do about most of them. What we do welcome is a more transparent system and one where doctors and patients work in partnership. 

Likewise we are keen to do everything we can to encourage a culture in healthcare institutions that encourages and supports those who raise concerns. The fact that we have to take action in a few cases where doctors have seriously or persistently flouted our guidance is not incompatible with this stance.

No ‘punishment

Some of the concerns referred to us are very serious and we must act first to protect patients. That can include asking an independent panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to impose conditions on a doctor’s practice, or suspend their licence, while we investigate.

This is not, as is suggested by Drs Lees and Williams, about punishing doctors before evidence has been found proven. It is a fundamental part of our role to protect patients. These panels have a duty to assess whether there is a prima facie case which, if proved, would put patients at risk. The decisions made by those panels have no bearing on the investigation or on the final outcome, which is not determined by the same panel.

So the claim that we want to punish and punish more is quite wrong. We have always accepted that the effect of the fitness-to-practise process created by Parliament can be punitive, the point we have sought to make is that the purpose is not to punish. It is to protect patients and the reputation of the profession.

The authors depict us as punitive and vindictive yet, as they point out, we dismiss most complaints because they do not reach our threshold. Sometimes we have to investigate to reach that conclusion but we are keen that as much as possible is managed and resolved locally. 

And our consultation on sanctions guidance has provoked the largest number of replies we can remember and while we will have to wait for the detailed analysis, the overwhelming response has been positive. 

We are reaching out to the profession and engaging with front line doctors as never before, and we have revolutionised the way we engage with employers through regular face-to-face meetings. Our Employer Liaison Service (ELS) has created strong links with employers and now supports Responsible Officers in managing concerns locally, helping to make sure that doctors are referred to us only when it is necessary. We are also making better use of our data to see what more we can do to support doctors at risk of receiving a complaint.

The fitness-to-practise work we do will always be controversial. The stakes are high and the circumstances are often disputed - it is unusual for both complainant and doctor to be satisfied. But it is important work and the actions we and the MPTS, do protect patients and do help to maintain the justifiable trust patients have in the profession. We have done a lot to improve a system under a lot of pressure, but we accept there is a lot more to do.

Niall Dickson is Chief Executive of the General Medical Council

Rate this article  (1.3599999999999999 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (43)

  • Vinci Ho

    Interesting response from ND. Obviously,,he felt it was necessary to respond to the article and target a few specific points raised in it.
    Good to have the common understanding that more needs to be done but this also repudiates the oversimplified attitude that 'every doctor will likely to be investigated by GMC in his/her life , so get on with it and be so called resilient (with or without the special training) anyway.'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Niall Dickson..'we are exploring consensual disposal' what on earth does that mean?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A fully expected this type of statement, but he still missed addressing the long list of serious concerns my a mile.

    I hope he has read the comments on PULSE below the various articles. I hope that meeting the challenge head on is what he means by "accept there is a lot more to do".

    Please can they speed up before more doctors die?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John Glasspool

    I am still awaiting a formal response from the Police to my question about corporate manslaughter

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Niall, there has to be a judge-led independent public inquiry into the GMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To me, the GMC appears to be merely a section of the Department of Health.

    It is the antithesis of a professional regulating body in that its mores appear to be set by prevailing fashion and political expediency, and the behaviour of the GMC was the major reason that I retired.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This issue of arbitrary action by the GMC is having an affect on GP recruitment, whom are the main group of doctors affected by the regulator - as reported today on Sky News.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is ND a 'Professor' of? (main page headline).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolute rubbish!
    The GMC do not give a damn about Doctors' welfare and never will until we have a right of redress.
    I know a Partner whose patient made a trivial complaint about her direct to the GMC. Rather than directing the patient to complain to a more appropriate body in the first instance, they instead embarked on a fishing expedition by contacting the CCG and NHS England to see if they had any concerns about this Doctor. Result? Massive stress for her until, 9 months later, in their high handed way they announced they would not be pursuing the case 'in this instance'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sudheer Surapaneni

    The procedures applied by the GMC, after a complaint, are, Interim conditions or suspensions by the Interim panels, which convene upto six times in the first eighteen months period. At the end of this period, many doctors are being offered 'Voluntary Undertakings'(most doctors do not refuse for fear of referral to the Fitness To Practice). This pathways is highly questionable on moral and ethical grounds, as the doctor is persuaded to accept when there has been no findings of fact made against him.

    If and when the conditions and Undertakings make the doctor unemployable, the deskilled doctor cannot find support for retraining.
    No compensation for damaged and lost careers.
    No retraining responsiblity taken by Deaneries or NHS.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.