Fewer ethnic minority doctors are referred to GMC after cases are anonymised
BMJ 2022; 377 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1153 (Published 06 May 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;377:o1153All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
There has been negligible national media coverage and minimal response in the BMJ since the publication two weeks ago of what should ordinarily be a piece of welcome news. This deafening silence speaks volumes considering the broad readership of the BMJ. One cannot but wonder whether the apparent silence is because of disinterest by the majority or the minority’s lack of faith in the system to effect significant changes following the piece of work and positive outcomes.
Hopefully, other trusts across the UK will work with the NHS’s workforce race equality standard to tackle racial inequality and discrimination issues concerning doctors and other healthcare professionals to eventually make the national picture mirror the East of England’s.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editors
"Setting up independent panels to review anonymised case information before doctors are formally referred to the General Medical Council has helped to reduce the disproportionate rate of referrals of doctors from ethnic minorities in the east of England"
"there was now parity of referral between white doctors and those from ethnic minorities at three quarters of trusts in the region."
I am surprised that in the 10 days since this wa published in the BMJ, there is only ONE rapid response (ref 1) to this signficant news.
No responses from anyone representing the British International Doctors Association of UK (BIDA), the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), the Indian Medical Association (IMA) of UK or the NHS BME network.
Have the representatives fallen off the system decimated by the pandemic or are they asleep at the wheel and do not realise the significance of this finding?
There is much for BME doctors to be thankful for in this initiative of NHS’s workforce race equality standard, and frankly the GMC would need to consider this a screening tool as well when considering referrals and notifications.
There is a need to maintain the rage to improve ethnic equality and reduce racial discrimination.
But frankly it would be hard to do this when there seems to be a distinct lack of response (or rage) in the first place.
Reference:
1. https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1153/rr
Competing interests: I may be identified as "BME" if I worked in the NHS.
Dear Editor
We could now reasonably infer from this evidence that prior to anonymisation, crucial decision making was tainted with racial bias. If so, is there any remedy for doctors who were unfairly sanctioned due to racial bias?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Fewer ethnic minority doctors are referred to GMC after cases are anonymised
Dear Editor,
The paper on the effectiveness of scrutiny panels is timely. Over the past 40 years various reforms (1) have been tried to minimise unnecessary disciplinary measures taken by hospital management but none have worked. Unless such panels have a statutory status, this would fail again. It is also important that scrutiny panels are independent; appointed members to the panel would not be seen to be so. Any new system should be seen to be effective and fair for all members of staff; this would then result in minimising discriminative practice and BAME staff would benefit as well. The recent case of Dr Arora being referred to the GMC highlights the necessity of a scrutiny panel (2).
In a recent paper (3), supported by 19 medical organisations, we have therefore proposed that an independent and elected scrutiny panel with statutory powers be established at each Trust. Management would be required to seek its permission before undertaking any investigation of a doctor and to keep the panel informed at each stage of the investigation. This would not only ensure fairness for all but would also result in a palpable improvement in the current culture of fear in the NHS (4). The number of doctors subjected to internal disciplinary process would decrease. The GMC should not accept any referral from Trusts without the permission of the scrutiny panel.
While these proposals are for doctors, the principles stated in the paper could be applied to all staff within the NHS. Scrutiny panels could also become the local guardians of Freedom to Speak Up.
Arun Baksi, Emeritus Consultant Physician
Email: baksi@baksi.co.uk
Professor Parag Singhal, Consultant Physician in Endocrinology
Email: hapsinghal@yahoo.com
References
1. MHPS 205: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130123204228/http://w... nsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4103586
2. The GMC has lost the profession’s trust and respect. BMJ 2022; 377 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1374 (Published 01 June 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;377:o1374
3. Hospital investigatory proceedings against doctors in England: A case for a change. Hospital investigatory proceedings against doctors in England
4. BMA Survey. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/the...
Competing interests: No competing interests