This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

​GMC may consider anonymous FTP investigations to avoid racial bias

Exclusive The GMC may consider anonymising fitness-to-practice investigations, after a GP leader suggested doing so would ‘reduce any bias’ in the regulatory system.

Dr Gaurav Gupta, a representative on the BMA’s GP Committee, said that he proposed anonymising FTP investigations at a BMA conference, because of concerns that BME doctors ‘get tougher sanctions at the outcome of regulatory proceedings’. 

In response, the GMC told Pulse that researchers leading its ongoing review of employer referrals to the GMC will be made aware of the points raised, ‘so they may be considered as part of their review’.

Dr Gupta made the suggestion at the BMA’s conference on racism in medicine earlier this month where Roger Kline, one of the lead researchers on the GMC review, was also in attendance.

Dr Gupta told Pulse: ‘We know that BME doctors are more likely to be reported to the GMC and there have been concerns that they get tougher sanctions at the outcome of regulatory proceedings.

‘The NHS needs to do more to reduce any bias in the complaints and regulatory system.

‘One way to do this is to anonymise the processes until the stage where an individual intervention is required.’

His comments come as the GMC is carrying out a major review looking into the number of complaints received from employers against doctors with a BME background in April.

The terms of reference for the review, released earlier this month, said that the research will help the GMC ‘understand what constitutes good practice with respect to processes and assurance of decision making prior to and at the point of referral to the GMC’.

Anthony Omo, director of fitness to practise for the GMC, said previous independent audits have shown that ‘ethnicity does not affect the way we handle complaints’, with staff ‘trained in equality, diversity and unconscious bias’.

He added: ‘But we do know BME doctors are overrepresented in referrals from employers which is linked to their overrepresentation in our fitness-to-practise procedures and we’ve commissioned research to examine why this occurs, and how we can work with clinical leaders and employers to make positive change.

‘We will make sure the lead researchers, Dr Doyin Atewologun and Roger Kline, are aware of the concerns raised at the BMA conference, so they may be considered as part of their review of employer referrals to the GMC.’

The review was launched after the GMC was accused of ‘inherent bias’ against BME doctors for taking a case to the High Court in an attempt to ensure Nigerian-born Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba was struck off the medical register following a conviction of gross negligence manslaughter.

Readers' comments (11)

  • Pandoras box has been opened by the GMC in the Dr BG case,what ever they do the relationship between the medical profession and the GMC(the state)has irreversibly been damaged by it's actions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The GMC needs to be regulated

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The GMC needs to be disbanded and it’s sticky paws removed from education. As I read Harry Potter again to my children Dolores Umbridge and co have new meaning for me!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    What are they going to do? Change the names of all the doctors to "Smith" and put a carrier bag over their heads?

    Laughable idea from a morally bankrupt evil empire.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem is that BME doctors are not the same as locally-raised white doctors in so many ways !
    Not only are they more likely to be referred to the GMC, but they are also more likely to have been educated abroad (not all of them), speak a foreign language (probably worst if it is american english!), have different cultural background (not all of them), have communication difficulties (language, grammar, colloquialisms), and have foreign training, which may be EQUIVALENT to British training, but it is NOT the SAME, and they may slip up over unfamiliarity with British and NHS ways of doing things!
    A paper bag over the head will not camouflage their accent, words, language abilities (non-medical language is very important), or understanding of Med3s for example! Nor GMC hearing procedures.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Government Muppets.
    Start again and do it properly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    The problem is this never really address the core problem : the actual threshold (or the fashionable term ‘red line’ beyond which a FTP will be triggered , as well as the handling of FTP by this self proclaimed ‘protector of people’ .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No anonymity unless the concerned professional asks for it. Else, it is going to become a pretext to crucfy hard working GPs and get away with no bias at all as the ethnicity was anonymized.
    GMC does seem to have shrewd people working - who want to be smeared a second time like the GB case which has exposed stark apartheid policies.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If they can trigger a FTP on the basis of a complaint from a drug addict who has been refused 'excessive quota' just because the complainant writes ' this doctor does not know how to treat British people', I am sorry, they need to take a long hard look at their mugs in the mirror and do some soul searching.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There's a new and powerful begonged broom. The house will be swept clean.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think anonymisation is a step in the right direction. Anonymity for all until found guilty would be another. Conducting investigations in a fair and balanced manner would be even better, rather than constantly treating everyone who comes to the attention of the GMC as guilty until proven innocent (and probably guilty even then). If that sounds excessive, just consider that the GMC never apologise to anyone, and that there is no such thing as a not guilty verdict in a fitness to practice hearing - only 'proved' or 'not proved'. As any Scot will tell you, 'not proved' means 'we still think your guilty, we just haven't got enough evidence to prove it'.

    And as anyone who has come to the attention of the GMC can be considered to have 'brought the profession into disrepute' and can therefore reasonably be sanctioned to 'maintain public confidence in the medical profession'...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say