scholarly journals Complaints against psychiatrists

2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 142-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barbenel ◽  
George Ikkos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Supervision ◽  
Royal College ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Standards Of Practice ◽  
Poor Practice

Psychiatrists need to maintain demonstrably good standards of practice. They are guided in this by clinical supervision and consultation, by Duties of a Doctor, (General Medical Council; GMC, (1995)) and by guidelines from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1984). The ethical standards to which psychiatrists should adhere are made explicit in The Declaration of Madrid (World Psychiatric Association, 1997). Procedures exist to address poor practice and irresponsible conduct.It is important that psychiatrists actively support and participate in these.

scholarly journals EP.TH.507An Audit of Consent Documentation and Chaperone Use in Patients Presenting to Acute Settings with Breast Complaints

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Dunlop
Keyword(s):  
Royal College ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Acute Setting ◽  
Standards Of Practice ◽  
Assessment Unit ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
And Gender

Abstract Aim To compare current practice of documenting consent and offering chaperones when performing breast examinations in the acute setting, with standards set by regulatory bodies (General Medical Council, Royal College of Emergency Medicine and Royal College of Surgeons). Method Data was collected retrospectively from all patients presenting with breast complaints to either the emergency department (ED) or the surgical assessment unit (SAU) over a 34-month period. From the clerk-in notes, the role (Dr/Nurse), grade (FY1 to consultant) and gender of the examiner was noted, as well as whether consent was documented and if a chaperone was offered. Results Of the 64 patients presenting in this time frame, consent was documented in 7 sets of notes (11%). Furthermore, 17 were offered a chaperone (27%), of which examiners correctly documented the name and role of the chaperone on 11 occasions. Results also demonstrated that ED trainees were most likely to offer a chaperone and GP trainees were the best at recording consent. It also revealed that although male examiners offered a chaperone 50% of the time compared to 6% of female examiners, women examiners were better at documenting consent when compared to their male counterparts. Conclusion The audit results indicate that there is significant room for improvement across all roles, grades and genders with regards to documentation of consent and the use of chaperones within the acute setting, in order to meet current standards of practice as set out by regulatory bodies.

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.

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?

the 2013 MRCS examination: an update

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (5) ◽  
pp. 166-167
Author(s):  
Peter A Brennan ◽  
Stephen Hills ◽  
Michael Parker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Examination ◽  
Royal College ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Objective Structured Clinical Examination ◽  
Medical Council

The Intercollegiate Committee for Basic Surgical Examinations (ICBSE) has, with the approval of the General Medical Council (GMC), driven the continued evolution of the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS). Since the introduction in September 2008 of the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) – Part B of the MRCS – there have been a number of changes and the first diet of the latest version was held in February 2013.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document