Consultation summary:
When a serious concern is raised about a doctor's behaviour, health or performance, and we find the doctor poses a risk to patients or to public confidence in doctors, we can take action on their registration. We are consulting on changes to the information we publish and disclose about these doctors.
Our proposed changes are:
- Introducing limits on the length of time that sanctions[1] on a doctor's registration will be published on the online medical register or disclosed to general enquirers. At present, all sanctions (excluding warnings) are published and disclosed indefinitely.
- Transferring onto the online medical register historical data about sanctions that were imposed during 1994-2005, where the doctors are still registered. At present, the online medical register contains data only from 2005 – the year it was introduced.
- Where a doctor appeals the decision of a fitness to practise panel, making sure that the information we provide on the outcome of the case is as transparent as possible.
- Where a doctor appeals the decision of an interim orders panel, clarifying our policy on what information will be published.
- Providing greater transparency and detail in cases where we agree undertakings with a doctor without a fitness to practise panel hearing.
The GMC invited responses from anyone with a view about how information on a doctor’s fitness to practise should be published and disclosed.
The GMC will use the responses received to help us revise its publication and disclosure policy, with implementation planned for August 2016.
What is the scope of the review?
We are reviewing our policy on the publication and disclosure of fitness to practise information, to make sure that it is proportionate and provides transparency about the decisions we take.
This policy deals with the routine publication and disclosure of fitness to practise information. We will still continue to consider use of our discretionary powers in individual circumstances on a case-bycase basis, in line with our legislative framework described above.
This consultation covers information routinely published about fitness to practise decisions on the medical register on our website, and on the recent decisions page on the MPTS website.(www.mpts-uk.org/recentdecisions)
It does not include proposals on publishing information about warnings, which are issued to doctors for lower level concerns where case examiners or fitness to practise panels consider that restricting a doctor’s registration would be disproportionate. We consulted in 2014 on issues around the publication and disclosure of warnings as part of our wider review of how we deal with
concerns about doctors. There was strong support for a system whereby case examiners and panels determine for how long warnings should be published and disclosed on a case-by-case basis and we are developing this proposal further, with a view
to implementation in 2016.(www.gmc-uk.org/ftpconsultations)
We remain committed to the principles that underpin our current policy – being transparent and open about our processes and decisions, and accessible to enquirers seeking information about a doctor’s registration. We believe that openness about the actions we take in response to serious concerns about doctors is in the interests of the public and the medical profession. However, we want to make sure that our policy is proportionate in balancing the public interest with the individual interests of the doctor who has been investigated.
Our proposed changes
- Introducing limits on the length of time that sanctions* in relation to a doctor’s registration will be published on the medical register or disclosed to general enquirers. At present, all sanctions (excluding warnings) are published and disclosed indefinitely (pages 4–11).
- Transferring onto the online medical register historical data about sanctions that were imposed during 1994–2005, where the doctors are still registered. At present, the online medical register contains data only from 2005 – the year it was introduced (pages 12–13).
- Where a doctor appeals the decision of a fitness to practise panel, making sure that the information we provide on the outcome of the case is as transparent as possible (pages 14–23).
- Where a doctor appeals the decision of an interim orders panel, clarifying our policy on what information will be published
- (pages 24–27).
- Providing greater transparency and detail in cases where we agree undertakings with a doctor without a fitness to practise panel hearing (pages 28-30).
Background:
We have to publish a range of our decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practise in line with the Medical Act 1983. We have a discretionary power to withhold any information about the physical or mental health of a person that we consider to be confidential. We also have a discretionary power to publish or disclose any information about a doctor to any person, where we consider it to be in the public interest.
Our current approach to publishing and disclosing this information is set out in our Publication and disclosure policy. We remain committed to the principles that underpin our current policy – being transparent and open about our processes and decisions, and accessible to enquirers seeking information about a doctor’s registration. We believe that openness about the actions we take in response to serious concerns about doctors is in the interests of the public and the medical profession. However, we want to make sure that our policy is proportionate in balancing the public interest with the individual interests of the doctor who has been investigated.
This consultation covers information routinely published about fitness to practise decisions on the online medical register on our website, and on the Recent decisions page of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service’s website.
