Investigation of Allegations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
The Public

General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, Part 2 (Investigation of allegations) (initial consideration by the registrar and referral of allegations, consideration by case examiners, consideration by the Investigation Committee, and review of decisions), especially rule 4(5) (‘no allegation shall proceed further if, at the time it is first made or first comes to the attention of the GMC, more than five years have elapsed since the most recent events giving rise to the allegation, unless the Registrar considers that it is in the public interest for it to proceed’)

scholarly journals Confidence and conflicts of duty in surgery

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Coggon ◽  
Robert Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Information ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
High Importance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Importance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Very High

This paper offers an exploration of the right to confidentiality, considering the moral importance of private information. It is shown that the legitimate value that individuals derive from confidentiality stems from the public interest. It is re-assuring, therefore, that public interest arguments must be made to justify breaches of confidentiality. The General Medical Council&s guidance gives very high importance to duties to maintain confidences, but also rightly acknowledges that, at times, there are more important duties that must be met. Nevertheless, this potential conflict of obligations may place the surgeon in difficult clinical situations, and examples of these are described, together with suggestions for resolution.

Confidentiality Issues in Practice: a View from the General Medical Council

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-89
Author(s):  
Fionnula Flannery
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
National Policy ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Community Needs ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Uk

The General Medical Council (GMC)'s guidance Confidentiality was last published in 2009. Since then the healthcare landscape in the four countries of the UK has continued to evolve and in 2015 the guidance will be reviewed to ensure that it remains compatible with the law and relevant to practice. This article summarises some of the practice issues that have been identified in enquiries to the GMC. These include the increasing emphasis on the use and integration of electronic health records systems to support patient care; the impacts of national policy debates around adult and child safeguarding; and ongoing debates about the use of health information for secondary purposes such as research, healthcare planning and audit. These issues raise questions and challenges, for example around models of consent, the definition and scope of public interest, and the relative weights that should be given to community needs and to individual autonomy that will need to be considered as part of the review of the guidance. 'All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.' – Hippocrates, 5th century BC

Healthcare Management

2018 ◽  
pp. 157-168
Author(s):  
William R. Roche
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Professional Regulation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Corporate Manslaughter

Doctors are familiar with the professional regulation of their practice and behaviour through the General Medical Council and for their liabilities under civil law in the event that a patient comes to harm. The public outcry in response to a series of reports into healthcare failings and wrongdoing has led to legislation that criminalizes certain acts and omissions. Increased resort to judicial review has also produced a series of key judgments that have more sharply defined the duties and liabilities of those commissioning and providing healthcare. Medical managers need to be aware of the increased range of professional expectations of them as individuals and the statutory duties of healthcare commissioners and providers. This chapter will discuss issues in relation to this, such as rationing, corporate manslaughter, due diligence, duty of candour, intellectual property, exploiting commercial interests, and trainee liability.

Commitment to Professionalism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Improvement ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Difference ◽  
High Standards ◽  
Continued Learning ◽  
Situational Judgement

The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has defined professionalism as a ‘set of values, behaviours, and relationships that underpins the trust the public has in doctors’. Dame Janet Smith has described professionalism as ‘a basket of qualities that enables us to trust our advisors’. The RCP has imagined some of the qualities that might be included within Dame Janet’s basket as ‘integrity, compassion, altruism, continuous improvement, excellence, and working in partnership’. The General Medical Council (GMC) has taken this further in the ‘Professionalism in action’ section of Good Medical Practice (2013). According to the GMC, good doctors ‘make the care of their patients their first concern: they are competent, keep their knowledge and skills up to date, establish and maintain good relationships with patients and colleagues, are honest and trustworthy, and act with integrity and within the law. They also work in partnership with patients and respect their rights to privacy and dignity. They treat each patient as an individual. They do their best to make sure all patients receive good care and treatment that will support them to live as well as possible, whatever their illness or disability’. The Medical Protection Society (MPS) has, however, been clear that ‘professionalism’ is not the same as ‘perfectionism’. Although professionalism encompasses the ambition to provide high- quality care, mistakes are an inevitable part of working as a doctor. For the MPS, ‘true professionalism comes into play when mistakes are made . . . knowing what to do when things go wrong and how to react appropriately can make all the difference in ensuring high standards of patient care are maintained and a speedy resolution is reached’. Situational judgement questions within this section will test your probity by exploring responses to scenarios that might require you to challenge unacceptable behaviour, maintain confidentiality, and, as always, prioritize patient safety. You need to demonstrate a commitment to achieving your various clinical responsibilities, as well as a desire for continued learning and a commitment to helping the development of others. These scenarios test your honesty towards patients and colleagues, and a willingness to admit mistakes.

Public or Private Hearing

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Mental Condition ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
The Individual

The rules invariably provide that the committee or tribunal shall sit in private where it is considering the physical or mental health of the practitioner unless there is a public interest in holding the hearing in public that outweighs the needs to protect the privacy or confidentiality of the registrant or others concerned. Examples include General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, rule 41(3)–(6), Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, rule 19(2)–(2A), and General Pharmaceutical Council (Fitness to Practise and Disqualification etc) Rules 2010, rule 39(2)). The Bar Standards Board Fitness to Practise Regulations (which are concerned with whether a barrister is unfit to practise by reason of an adverse physical or mental condition), rE335, provides that the hearing before a panel or review panel shall be in private, unless the individual requests a public hearing.

scholarly journals Responding to the Kerr/Haslam Inquiry

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 207-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Subotsky
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Sexual Misconduct ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Professional Conduct ◽  
Professional Misconduct ◽  
The Public

In 2004 I was asked by the College first to respond to the Inquiry's questions and later to attend a ‘stakeholders' meeting’. This was not so much in my capacity as Treasurer but as an officer with an interest in the issue of risk and professional difficulties for psychiatrists. A review of the public reports from the General Medical Council (GMC) of their determinations in the Professional Conduct Committee had made it evident that sexual misconduct was probably the single greatest cause of a finding of serious professional misconduct against a psychiatrist. In addition, I had contributed to an earlier debate on sexual safety for women in psychiatric hospitals (Subotsky, 1991, 1993).

scholarly journals Relicensing, recertification and regulation

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Catto
Keyword(s):  
Medical Practice ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Good Medical Practice ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
The Uk ◽  
New System

Proposed changes to the regulation of healthcare professionals in the UK set regulators a considerable challenge. Here I examine the nature of the challenge and what the General Medical Council (GMC) and its partners are doing to meet it. Relicensing and recertification are crucial. Revalidation is the sum of their parts and the duty of any responsible regulator. Effective revalidation will provide affirmation of doctors' entitlement to practise, and give the public the assurance that the doctors who treat them are up to date and fit to practise. The GMC's Good Medical Practice is central to any new system, and I outline the GMC's long-term thinking and immediate priorities, including the development of colleague and patient questionnaires and plans to introduce licences to practise.

scholarly journals Improving the Quality of Operation Notes by Using a Mnemonic and Proforma

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 200-202
Author(s):  
NJG Bauer ◽  
A Wilson ◽  
RJ Grimer
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
The Uk

The General Medical Council is assigned the role of safeguarding and maintaining the health and wellbeing of the public by the Medical Act 1983. All doctors and surgeons in the UK are bound by their professional standards and regulations. Surgeons have to abide by the standards set by The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS), which are deemed 'reasonable, assessable and achievable by all competent surgeons'. One of these standards is the overriding duty to ensure that 'all medical records are legible, complete and contemporaneous'. It is vital that all medical and surgical notes document each consultation or procedure that the patient has undergone during his or her stay in hospital.

scholarly journals Promoting public confidence in the medical profession: Learning from the case of Dr. Bawa-Garba

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-72
Author(s):  
Paula Case ◽  
Gunjan Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
Future Risk ◽  
The Uk

In a 2015 prosecution which divided public opinion, Dr Bawa-Garba was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and sentenced to 2-years’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. The post-conviction litigation which sought to determine whether and when Dr Bawa-Garba could return to clinical practice threatened to destabilise the already fragile relationship between the medical profession and its regulator, the General Medical Council. At the heart of this litigation lay the regulator’s quest to maintain and promote public confidence in the profession, in a case where the doctor concerned was not regarded as posing a future risk to patient safety. Using the Bawa-Garba litigation, this commentary examines the position and use of the nebulous concept of ‘public confidence’ within the fitness to practise framework for doctors. Although the authors’ observations arise specifically from a case decided in the UK, ‘public confidence’ is a touchstone concept in professional regulation regimes around the world and so these observations have relevance beyond this jurisdiction. The authors argue that, for too long, use of the rhetoric of public confidence in the regulation of the medical profession has been characterised by an unsatisfactory lack of transparency, excessive deference by the courts to regulatory tribunals and that research is increasingly signalling that instinctual ‘expert’ judgements on the issue of ‘what the public think’ may be unreliable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document