FTP decisions will be more ‘consistent’ thanks to updated guidance, GMC claims
The GMC has updated its fitness to practise (FTP) guidance to ensure ‘greater consistency’ in decisions about whether doctors are investigated or taken to tribunal.
Updates to various guidance documents, published today, are intended to provide all GMC case examiners and decision makers with a ‘single set of core principles’, while also bringing the FTP process for doctors ‘into line’ with the process for physician associates.
However, the GMC clarified that the ‘thresholds for fitness to practise concerns are unchanged’ and updates are ‘based on existing guidance’ rather than any change in process.
The updated guidance emphasises that from tomorrow GMC case examiners must focus on the ‘seriousness of the concern’, including factors such as repeated behaviour, as well as the ‘impact of any relevant context’ and the response of the doctor (see box).
In a new guidance document about deciding whether regulatory action is required, the GMC set out a number of concerns which are ‘not usually serious enough to give rise to a question of impaired fitness to practise’.
These instances included minor motoring offences not including drugs or alcohol, a minor non-clinical matter such as ‘rudeness’, or an incident of self-prescribing or prescribing to those in a ‘close personal relationship’, unless for controlled drugs or on a repeated basis.
According to the document, matters which usually meet the seriousness threshold include ‘violent or abusive behaviour’, clinical failings, and insufficient knowledge of the English language.
The GMC clarified to Pulse that this new guidance document ‘builds on the concepts’ already set out in existing guidance.
A spokesperson said: ‘It collates material from existing guidance across the fitness to practise process into one place for case examiners and key decision makers at the GMC.
‘What’s new is that it will provide them with, for the first time, a single set of core principles which are to be applied by all GMC fitness to practise decision makers. This provides consistency in decision-making as all teams will now use the same guidance in assessing current and ongoing risk to public protection rather than a disparate range of guidance.
‘While the thresholds for fitness to practise concerns are unchanged and the update is based on existing guidance, we have promoted this in the interest of transparency.’
On physician associate regulation, they said: ‘The guidance also brings decisions about doctors in line with the approach to how cases involving physician associates and anaesthesia associates are considered to bring parity across the professions we regulate, so that the three professions now have the same structure for decision-making guidance.’
GMC director of fitness to practise Anthony Omo said the new guidance will ‘make it easier’ for case examiners and decision makers to apply GMC principles ‘fairly and consistently’ while maintaining patient safety.
‘And by being transparent about our approach we are making it easier for doctors, complainants and the public to understand how we assess concerns and reach decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practise,’ he added.
Mr Omo also said: ‘This work reinforces our ongoing commitment to deliver a fitness to practise process that is fair, flexible and compassionate, as well as effective.’
Framework for GMC case examiners
- What is the seriousness of the information received?
- Is the information serious enough to give rise to a question of impaired fitness to practise?
- If serious enough, where on the spectrum of matters that give rise to a question of impaired fitness to practise does the concern lie?
- What is the impact of any relevant context known about the doctor and/ or their working environment?
- How has the doctor responded to the concern? Such as showing insight and remediation.
Last year, the GMC relaxed its FTP processes for doctors so that ‘minor’ concerns such as ‘pushing a colleague’ are not taken to tribunal.
The regulator said it was giving case examiners and decision makers ‘more discretion’ to throw out complaints if they represented a lower risk to public protection.
Doctor leaders have often criticised GMC referrals to tribunal, with Pulse reporting on a ‘silly’ complaint in 2023 which the Doctors’ Association UK said was a ‘misuse’ of the FTP process.
Earlier this year, a survey found that only a third of GPs report ‘confidence’ in GMC regulation while trust in fitness to practise processes was even lower.
And in 2023, the BMA’s Annual Representative Meeting passed a no confidence vote in the GMC, in a motion which said ‘too many’ FTP tribunal decisions are ‘disproportionate to the error of the doctor’s mistake’.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [3]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Cumulative consideration by the GMC of ‘non-medical area’ transgressions, – surely makes you vulnerable to bad faith. If you have reason to trouble the GMC or say, have valid criticisms of its stance or its people, – and they can look at your motoring history gaffes and your social history gaffes, – you become vulnerable to a bad-faith summons.
The only thing that needs to happen is for the GMC to be eradicated and its Uhljebs to receive their marching orders.
What the GMC mean is that they will be more “consistent”……in their poor decision making. Because the institutional power and bias in their structure and mechanics remain captive to political interests and unreformed.