Regulatory body fails in bid to challenge GMC's ruling on suspension
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7445.914-b (Published 15 April 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:914
All rapid responses
If the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals
(CRHP)is concerned about "the protection to the public afforded by those
bodies" and judgments that are "unduly lenient" in relation to the GMC and
doctors then it is likely that the CRHP would be even more greatly
concerned about NHS trusts and the undue leniency towards managers who
fiddle waiting lists or exhibit other inappropriate and dishonest
behaviours that put patients at risk and who are then never held to
account by a disciplinary process but are simply paid off at public
expense and allowed to drift off elsewhere into the public or private
sector.
Is this government doing everything that it can possibly do about
protecting patients from risk or is it just talking about it when it comes
to health service managers who are "professionals" according to the
Bristol Inquiry team that uncovered the "club culture" in management? Had
Professor Sir Ian Kennedy's post Bristol Inquiry recommendations for a
register and regulatory body for senior managers been followed by Alan
Milburn then the public would now be benefitting from having wayward
managers and how they are dealt with and disciplined by NHS trusts under
very close scrutiny from the CRHP. It would be very interesting to know
what the CRHP feels about this despairingly black hole in healthcare
regulation and how it may adversely impact on patient safety now and into
the future until Alan Milburn's poor choice of options is rectified by the
current ministers in the Department of Health.
(The views expresed are my own and not those of my employing
organisation).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Regulating the Regulator?
Current regulatory changes in the NHS makes a mockery of GMC and its
role. Fundamental principle of GMC is ‘Protecting patients and guiding
doctors and the decision by the Council for Regulation of Health Care
Professionals (CRHP) to challenge the GMC, fails to protect patients and
only people who benefit are the lawyers. Of course CRHP was not created to
guide or support doctors. It looks as if there is a battle between CRHP
and the GMC. Poor doctors face multiple jeopardy. This will not help our
patients and just a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Of course we should not lose the site of patient safety and it is
absolutely essential that the GMC takes its responsibility seriously.
Hopefully the GMC has learnt lessons from its recent mistakes. GMC should
not lose the site of its responsibility of guiding the doctors.
I just wonder who regulates the regulator like CRHP? As Dr. Dudley
says, who regulates the managers, directors and the Chief Executive? I
just wonder what happened to the Chief Executive who suspended the
neurosurgeon over a bowl of soup?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests