The GMC must learn from the Southall tragedy, but there are few signs that the organisation has done so-or indeed intends to.
With the perspective of time, it is clear that the Bristol, Alder Hey and Shipman cases of the 1990s and early 2000s led in turn to a febrile atmosphere among the media. This led to political pressure for the GMC to act and look tough, aided by some 'left field' judgements in relation, for example, to the right of a complainant to have their complaint heard in public.
A sort of institutional McCarthyism prevailed where suspicion trumped common sense; the result was a steep increase in complaints and public hearings. In this context the current GMC chief executive is quoted approvingly that more doctors are likely to report eachother.
What we have now is a regulator that habitually over-reacts, and appears to think that it is right to do so. The GMC not infrequently facilitates its own use as a tool between Trusts reporting doctors, and doctors reporting doctors. Doctors appearing before the Interim Orders Committee commonly face sanctions with far reaching ramifications based purely on the prima facie case-not on the veracity of the facts themselves. In the meantime, a fitness to practice hearing may take a year, two or more to come to fruition or be summarily dropped.
In the meantime, a doctor's life may disintegrate and their practice destroyed, suffering reputational damage and family breakdown-not to mention suspension from the employing Trust or other organisation. Even if charges are not found, they all too commonly find it difficult to function again.
Let me be clear that it is in nobody's interest to protect bad or dangerous doctors. Nor do I seek to suggest leniency for those whose practice has genuinely fallen below an acceptable standard. But there again, neither does a system serve patients well if justice is delayed and excessively cumbersome. Why, for example, should a GMC process take longer than many criminal prosecutions?
For the GMC to learn from its mistakes, it could do worse than to set up an independent appraisal of cases that came to a public hearing-by inviting both the complainants and the complained against to feedback their experiences. Whilst not quite a 'truth and reconciliation' commission, insights and experiences might well surprise the GMC. And even-heaven forbid-inform the future direction of travel of this confused organisation.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
30 May 2012
Christoph Lees
Consultant In Obstetrics and Fetal-Maternal Medicine
Rapid Response:
Re: David Southall: anatomy of a wrecked career
The GMC must learn from the Southall tragedy, but there are few signs that the organisation has done so-or indeed intends to.
With the perspective of time, it is clear that the Bristol, Alder Hey and Shipman cases of the 1990s and early 2000s led in turn to a febrile atmosphere among the media. This led to political pressure for the GMC to act and look tough, aided by some 'left field' judgements in relation, for example, to the right of a complainant to have their complaint heard in public.
A sort of institutional McCarthyism prevailed where suspicion trumped common sense; the result was a steep increase in complaints and public hearings. In this context the current GMC chief executive is quoted approvingly that more doctors are likely to report eachother.
What we have now is a regulator that habitually over-reacts, and appears to think that it is right to do so. The GMC not infrequently facilitates its own use as a tool between Trusts reporting doctors, and doctors reporting doctors. Doctors appearing before the Interim Orders Committee commonly face sanctions with far reaching ramifications based purely on the prima facie case-not on the veracity of the facts themselves. In the meantime, a fitness to practice hearing may take a year, two or more to come to fruition or be summarily dropped.
In the meantime, a doctor's life may disintegrate and their practice destroyed, suffering reputational damage and family breakdown-not to mention suspension from the employing Trust or other organisation. Even if charges are not found, they all too commonly find it difficult to function again.
Let me be clear that it is in nobody's interest to protect bad or dangerous doctors. Nor do I seek to suggest leniency for those whose practice has genuinely fallen below an acceptable standard. But there again, neither does a system serve patients well if justice is delayed and excessively cumbersome. Why, for example, should a GMC process take longer than many criminal prosecutions?
For the GMC to learn from its mistakes, it could do worse than to set up an independent appraisal of cases that came to a public hearing-by inviting both the complainants and the complained against to feedback their experiences. Whilst not quite a 'truth and reconciliation' commission, insights and experiences might well surprise the GMC. And even-heaven forbid-inform the future direction of travel of this confused organisation.
Competing interests: No competing interests