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?

Conditions of Practice Orders

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Performance Assessment ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Professional Performance

The panel found that U’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of both deficient professional performance and his physical or mental health, and directed that his registration be subject to conditions for a period of nine months, with immediate effect. At a General Medical Council (GMC) performance assessment, U was found to be well below the majority of his peers and fell below the minimum standard of the Royal College of Anaesthetists in eight out of ten examinations. On U’s appeal on sanction, Hickinbottom J said, at [16]–[18], that the hallmark of suspension is identified in section 35D(2)(b) of the Medical Act 1983: for a determined period, the registration of the relevant doctor is divested of all effect. Suspension prevents the doctor from practising during the period of suspension. Conditions on registration under section 35D(2)(c) presuppose that the doctor will continue to be effectively registered and will continue to practise, but subject to conditions that enable them to deal with their health or deficiency issues, whilst protecting patients—as well as the integrity of the medical profession—from harm.

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.

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.

Why doctors need to be careful with social media

2020 ◽  
pp. 230-231
Author(s):  
Nerys Williams
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Medical Association ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Royal College ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
British Medical Association ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
Use Of Social Media

In Why doctors needs to be careful with social media Nerys Williams briefly explores guidance for doctors on their use of social media, including advice from the General Medical Council (GMC), British Medical Association (BMA), and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document