Fraud and misconduct in medical research Summary of the report of the Royal College of Physicians

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 628-629
Author(s):  
Brian Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Working Party ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Region ◽  
Financial Fraud ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Research Committee

In February 1991 the Royal College of Physicians produced a report entitled ‘Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research’. Most of the cases documented have come from the United States but by the end of 1988 five cases had been formally reported in Britain. One of these was a financial fraud perpetrated by a psychiatrist who worked in a district general hospital in the Northern Region and who forged data for a drug company. He was subsequently reported to the General Medical Council by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and had his name removed from the medical register. Informal investigations, however, suggest that fraudulent research might be more widespread and as a result the Royal College of Physicians established a working party to look at this issue in detail. They recommended that a twin track approach of prevention and thorough management of complaints of misconduct be adopted. The report was kindly forwarded to the Research Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists which felt that a summary of these recommendations should be widely published among researchers in psychiatry.

Workplace Assessment in Crisis? – The Way Forward

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S297-S298
Author(s):  
H. Al-Taiar
Keyword(s):  
Working Party ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Workplace Assessment

IntroductionA recent Royal College of Physicians’ (RCP) study on assessment raises serious questions for workplace assessment. To address these, a system that bridges the gap from competence to performance and integrates supervised learning events (SLEs) that are formative in purpose with summative assessment of performance by entrustable professional activities (EPAs) is recommended.Aims and objectivesAs a working group on assessment in psychiatry, we were interested in the RCP findings which represent a significant milestone in studies of workplace assessment. The RCP aims were to evaluate the feasibility, validity and educational value of using existing WPBA tools but for different assessment purposes and processes.ResultsThese were based on the General Medical Council (GMC) working party on assessment. The RCP revised its assessment processes to differentiate between assessments of development and performance. The former are formative and aim to identify a trainee's areas of strength and development; the latter are summative and aim to determine fitness to progress. Of note is that the same workplace based assessment (WPBA) tool can be used for each type of assessment; the assessment's purpose is the discriminating factor.ConclusionsInitial design of the requisite EPAs requires value judgments by trainers and trainees alike on what represent core units of work. EPAs can contribute directly and more meaningfully to ARCP progression decisions.RecommendationsInclusion of the required level of supervision as part of SLE feedback enables future decisions on meeting performance standards.Trainee/trainerInteraction in this educational process.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his/her declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals The Problem Surgical Colleague

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 457-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G Mosley
Keyword(s):  
Royal College ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
The Right

‘All doctors are problem doctors.’ R Smith 1 The surgical profession, more than any other medical specialty, is constantly in the limelight. Frequently, concerns are expressed about our colleagues. The concerns may be personality clashes rather than failure in behaviour or performance. Most concerns can be addressed locally with support from the Royal College Invited Review Mechanism of the National Clinical Assessment Service. Unfortunately, if the concern is sufficiently serious or repetitive it may warrant referral to the General Medical Council (GMC) who alone has the right to withdraw a surgeon's medical registration. The surgeon will then be unable to work in the medical profession in this country. The procedures the the surgeon must undergo if referred to the GMC are stressful and protracted. Even if successful the surgeon will probably be expected to undergo a period of retraining that will prove difficult to arrange. New proposals to modify the GMC procedures will reduce the standard of proof to one of ‘balance of probabilities’. The surgical profession should be accountable to its patients and colleagues. Will our Royal College rise to the challenge to establish itself as the bulwark of the surgical profession?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document