BMA calls for GMC to be replaced with new regulator ‘for doctors only’

The BMA has called for a new professional regulator for doctors, arguing that the GMC is failing to support doctors and patient safety.

In a speech at the BMA annual representative meeting (ARM) in Liverpool this morning, council chair Professor Philip Banfield warned that the GMC’s approach to regulating physician associates (PAs) has led to ‘incessant and unsafe blurring of professional boundaries that threaten the very foundations of practising medicine’.

Doctors leaders have continued to raise concerns as PA regulation by the GMC officially began in December.

Professor Banfield said that today the BMA is launching a new register ‘solely for doctors’, which members will be asked to sign in support of a new regulator for doctors only.

He mentioned the recent court cases brought on by the BMA and Anaesthetists United against the GMC’s regulation of PAs, which challenged the GMC’s use of the term ‘medical professionals’ in its standards document Good Medical Practice and its refusal to set an official scope of practice for PAs.

He said: ‘The GMC argued that any doctor supervising a PA should first check what they can and can’t do with their former employers.

‘What world is the GMC living in? Clueless about how medicine is delivered. Condescending of the working lives of doctors. Contemptuous of the profession’s safety concerns. I’m afraid it feels they have lost the plot.’

The BMA said that results from a recent survey indicated that ‘the majority of doctors have no confidence in the GMC’ and more than 80% of respondents support the creation of a new medical regulator.

The annual meeting’s agenda also includes a motion to be debated tomorrow, calling for the resignation of the GMC’s chief executive, and for the BMA to set out a vision for a reformed GMC or alternative regulator.

Professor Banfield said: ‘It’s no wonder our recent survey shows the medical profession has no confidence in the GMC’s ability to protect the public.

‘Almost 90% agree that the way it regulates no longer distinguishes doctors from medically unqualified staff. That’s why over 80% of doctors told us that they now support the creation of a new medical regulator.

‘Today we must unearth the old battles, to fight for the heart and soul of our profession, and renew our calls for a regulator unburdened by the disappointing abject failure of what the GMC has become.

‘We fight once more for a regulator that can clearly define who can, and who cannot, practice medicine.’

He added that this morning members of the BMA UK council met and ‘were the first to add their names’ to the campaign.

He said: ‘We now need all doctors to do the same and send a clear and unequivocal message to the Government that the time for a reformation in medical regulation is now.

‘For a regulator that protects patients, treats doctors fairly, and puts them at the heart of its decision-making.

‘A regulator that supports high quality medical education across a whole career. A regulator that acts when ethnic minority doctors are disproportionately investigated. A medical regulator that knows what a doctor is.’

The BMA believes a new medical regulator should:

• have ‘a clear statutory duty to protect the public’, rather than this being an overarching objective
• ‘regulate doctors only’, providing the public with ‘a clear distinction’ between uniquely qualified doctors and non-doctor roles
• enforce new statutory protections of medical practitioner titles, to ensure the public is ‘not confused by perplexing NHS job titles’ that ‘blur the lines between doctors and non-doctors’.

The BMA campaign for a new regulator said: ‘The GMC exists to protect patients and support safe care. Yet for too long, through its regulatory framework and own decision making, it has been failing on both.

‘Over the concerns of clinicians, the GMC now regulates medically unqualified physician and anaesthesia associates alongside doctors in a way that blurs the professional boundaries between the two.

‘Doctors have voiced concerns about the GMC’s approach to regulation for many years, but despite its ambition to become a compassionate regulator, its recent arguments that it has no statutory duty to protect the public nor a legal duty of care towards the doctors it investigates shows the GMC has lost its way.’

It comes after last month the Government committed to reforming GMC regulation within this Parliament after years of delays.

A GMC spokesperson told Pulse: ‘We take our role working with doctors to support good, safe patient care very seriously. Our aim is to deliver effective, relevant and compassionate regulation.

‘A critical part of how we do this is by actively gathering feedback from doctors and patients about their experiences and using this to change and improve our processes.

‘This year, we also welcomed the announcement from Government of much-needed reform of the regulatory framework we operate to. Making further changes to the way we work will continue to benefit patient safety and ensure the public has confidence in the doctors we regulate.’

During an interview at Pulse LIVE Birmingham earlier this month, official review lead Professor Gillian Leng suggested the rollout of PAs could have been handled better.

In 2023, the BMA’s ARM passed a no confidence vote for the GMC, and called for its leadership’s dismissal, and in 2018, it also supported a vote of no confidence in the GMC following the controversial court case involving Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba.