This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

​Anger as GMC tries to overrule its own tribunal and strike off junior doctor

The GMC will take the unusual step of bringing its own tribunal in front of the High Court this week to appeal its decision not to strike off a trainee doctor from its register.

The Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service decided in June that erasing trainee paediatrician Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba from the register would be ‘disproportionate’ and recommended a 12-month suspension instead.

But the GMC disagrees with the ruling of its own tribunal, saying that it was ‘insufficient to protect the public’ and has brought the case to the High Court to overturn the decision.

The GMC’s actions in the case have already ignited controversy, with a group of 50 doctors writing to the head of the GMC last month with ‘grave concerns’ over the case, claiming a successful appeal would lead to the ‘criminalisation of clinical error’ and would worsen patient safety.

And over 10,300 people have signed a petition calling for the GMC to drop the appeal, due to be heard in less than a week.

Dr Bawa-Garba was a registrar at the Children’s Assessment Unit at Leicester Royal Infirmary on 18 February 2011, and the most senior doctor on the shift, when a six-year-old child with sepsis died. Dr Bawa-Garba continued to work at the hospital trust up until she was convicted of manslaughter by a Crown Court Jury in November 2015.

The MPTS said in a June 2017 hearing however, that erasing Dr Bawa-Garba from the GMC register would be ‘disproportionate’, that her actions were neither ‘deliberate or reckless’ and that she did not ’pose a continuing risk to patients.’ It concluded that Dr Bawa-Garba should be suspended from the register ‘for a maximum of 12 months’.

But the GMC has decided to appeal the decision and the case will be heard in the High Court on Thursday.

A GMC spokesperson said: ‘We never take the decision to appeal lightly and we only do so if, after careful consideration of all of the relevant circumstances, we conclude that a Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision was insufficient to protect the public.’

Last month, a letter from over 50 doctors to GMC chair Professor Terence Stephenson highlighted that an internal inquiry found 79 organisational actions that had to be made.

It says: ‘We feel there is a danger when any individual health care professional is independently blamed in a situation of multiple cumulative systems errors. Punishment of health care workers does not encourage open reflection and will lead to a cover-up culture. There is a staffing crisis in many acute specialities including paediatrics and the criminalisation of clinical error serves to worsen recruitment to high risk specialities.’

‘A successful appeal may simply send all the wrong signals to those wishing to enter a career in paediatrics and indeed health care. The criminalisation of multifactional medical error is the antithesis of a just culture and will serve to worsen learning from events and ultimately patient safety.’

Readers' comments (47)

  • This comment has been deleted

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This case is bigger than simply one GMC appeal. The reason people are so upset is because it symbolises the GMC's values. Over the last decade, for reasons best known to themselves (but likely financial) they've indulged in a lot of destructive behaviour and many of us are concerned by their ethical approach and the way the UK treats healthcare workers in a system being deliberately engineered to fail. In fact, this appeal reaches far beyond the GMC to other parts of the medical regulatory complex which for want of a better word has become evil.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sadly it fits very well with the published evidence on disproportionate representation of non-white doctors in Fitness to practice decisions by GMC

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GMC: Fit to practice?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It also reflects GMCs conception of being the only righteous ones as they feel the MPTS should only give decisions as per their directions. Why have an MPTS if GMC is infallible? It would always be helpful to know the names of people in GMC pushing this decision to appeal

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • Professor Stephenson needs to step down. This organisation is no longer fit for purpose if it goes against it's own tribunal. Wasting tax payer's money and our subscriptions on this. Unbelievable and unjust.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Professor Stephenson if this failed you should resign forthwith,it is the only moral action.You wont

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • I do not know the details but fail to see how one unintended error under pressure (which we all make) should lead to a lifetime of suffering on top of a manslaughter conviction and years of press coverage. Surely this doctor and family have suffered enough and any lessons learned have been learned and time to move on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They readily name the Registrar but do not name the GMC people - they have no names, no entities by which you could recognize them - just a heartless... machine which is represented by an anonymous 'Spokesman'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • LetsCutTheCrap

    Ah the usual blame culture imposed by a system each of whose various uncoordinated limbs do not know what actions have been taken by the other. Somebody's head must roll, so let's go for another vulnerable and stressed-out doctor's scalp. Shame indeed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say