Reforms without addressing core issues may lead to persistence of key flaws  or omissions in any future changes with risks to patients

Last month I wrote about the government proposing the first major reforms for 40 years in the running of the General Medical Council. My blog was meant as a warning to ministers to scrutinise the changes very carefully because I was sceptical, after talking to a number of doctors, that there were flaws in the changes. You can read the blog here.

Now the GMC has published its new guidance by Dr Andrew Hoyle, an assistant director in the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Team He is both a doctor and a barrister.

In a high minded piece on Linked In and in a blog ( see the article here) he promises greater clarity and consistency .. and fair, flexible and compassionate fitness to practise processes. He also emphasises the GMC’s duty under the 1983 Medical Act to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well being of the public, promote public confidence in the profession and promote and maintain professional standards and conduct by doctors.

Now from the patient’s point of view how is this being enacted by a change to one simple process?

The first point is drawing up guidance for the decision makers on whether to proceed. There is a comprehensive list of issues to consider for the decision makers whether to start an investigation into a doctor. But the response to the concern raiser, the guidance does not specify who the decision makers are. Are they fully competent in the field or even sub-field of medicine practised by the doctor to make a sound judgment  about clinical matters? I have heard from some doctors that this is not always the case. On the question of accountability should it not be made public who made the decision and their qualifications to do so. This would reassure the public and the patients that it had been properly investigated.

The current process’s most crucial step, the  “initial triage and closure of concerns” relies on the “opinions” of the GMC postholders who in turn rely on managers. There is no mandatory requirement to immediately investigate serious harms or near miss issues that may have led to consequences to that or other patients.

This is particularly relevant as there is also the issue of the seriousness of the concern. The guidelines suggest that if there is evidence of repeated bad practice this should be relevant to striking off doctors. But there is a second flaw in this process. How does the GMC know about a bad doctor? The answer is because he or she is reported to the GMC by the responsible officer – normally the medical director or chief medical officer of the trust or far less by patients and or colleagues who are more in the know of bad practices but are fearful of consequences. See article in the Lancet.

Therefore the issue the GMC knows about may not be the first one and the GMC cannot verify it with the current approach neither can the complainant know of all issues. 

From earlier blogs I have found this process to be flawed – either because the responsible officer has targeted a doctor who has raised whistleblowing issues – whether patient safety or fraud – to discredit a perfectly good doctor – the case of Usha Prasad, a former cardiologist at St Helier and Epsom hospital is a current example – or covered up bad practice to save the reputation of the trust or private hospital.

The most egregious example of the latter is the case of Mr Ian Paterson, a breast and general surgeon, now serving a 20 year prison sentence after performing unnecessary operations on hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting patients until a lawyer brought a civil case against him.

The public inquiry into his practice concluded “They were then let down both by an NHS trust and an independent healthcare provider who failed to supervise him appropriately and did not respond correctly to well-evidenced complaints about his practice.”

It went on: “The recall of patients did not put their safety and care first, which led many of them to consider the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust and Spire were primarily concerned for their own reputation. Patients were further let down when they complained to regulators and believed themselves frequently treated with disdain.”

Imagine how different the outcome for hundreds of patients if this had been first reported by a responsible officer to the GMC – life changing needless operations would have been stopped rather than covered up. What the GMC should demand is that the management of NHS trusts and private hospital groups have to sign a ” duty of candour” putting them on par with doctors who raise complaints. This would require them to notify the GMC about the practices of the doctor involved and meet the legal requirement that the GMC has to protect patients and promote higher standards in the profession. Otherwise the assessment of a serious repeated bad practice is a hollow gesture in many cases.

 However if the GMC has been and appears it is continuing to rely on the Responsible Officers to provide a response can the GMC’s decisions be evidence-based  and safe for public. Even if a small minority of doctors are unsafe or dishonest,  the impact on the patient and profession must be the core of decision.

The third point is when a doctor acts inappropriately or unsafely that can be investigated by the GMC personnel but who are potentially not being regulated by any one and via a process built on reliance on an RO and in at times without transparency or evidence verification and opinion based decisions are taken that can affect lives This does not appear to be a safe approach as multiple scandals continue to occur; suggesting concerns are not really reaching the GMC due to its current system or are being ignored.

The current concern management requires a complete overhaul and not just superficial tweaks

Since I started looking at this issue I have been contacted by doctors across the country about the GMC and I intend to follow this up in a future blog.