Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- General Medical
Council
- Name of policy document:
- Proposals to extend the use of consensual
disposal
- Deadline for response:
- 19 August 2009
Background: This consultation considers proposals to make more effective
use of the GMC's powers to conclude appropriate cases at the investigation
stage of our fitness to practise procedures, by agreeing undertakings
with doctors. The GMC refers to these powers as ‘consensual disposal’.
The GMC believes that the agreement of undertakings at the end of
the investigation stage provides a more proportionate way to respond
to certain types of concerns about doctors, particularly where the
concerns are about their performance. For this reason, the GMC would
like to extend the use of consensual disposal to all cases involving
a doctor’s performance, unless the case is so serious that the
doctor would be likely to be erased by a Fitness to Practise panel.
In seeking to ensure its procedures are proportionate, the GMC is
also considering changes to the way it approaches the issue of applications
for Voluntary Erasure by doctors who are within its fitness to practise
procedures. Currently, although its guidance makes provision for Voluntary
Erasure to be granted in certain cases it has traditionally taken a
cautious approach and the GMC would like to explore whether it could
extend the number of fitness to practise cases in which it grants Voluntary
Erasure, with appropriate safeguards.
This consultation considers some of the issues raised by these proposals,
including an examination of the benefits and drawbacks and seeks views
on how the GMC should proceed.
COMMENTS ON
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
PROPOSALS TO EXTEND THE USE OF CONSENSUAL DISPOSAL
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the
General Medical Council on its consultation on Proposals to extend the
use of consensual disposal. The College has the following comments
to make regarding these proposals.
-
In cases of poor performance, where remediation or rehabilitation is likely
to rectify deficiencies, the agreement of undertakings is a more proportionate
response than referral to a full Fitness to Practise Panel. An extension
of these procedures will be valuable.
-
The eligibility criteria for consensual disposal with undertakings are
not explicit within the consultation document. It is important that
doctors demonstrate insight, in addition to acceptance of the undertakings,
before consensual disposal is sanctioned.
-
It is essential that clear guidance is available to case examiners to ensure
the rules are applied consistently, particularly in terms of the criteria
that could exclude cases from this option (e.g. where there is a possibility
of erasure).
-
The College agrees that introducing a rehabilitation focus for less serious
problems may encourage more open reporting to the GMC, and that public disclosure
of the undertakings (other than health related information) will satisfy
the public interest with regard to transparency of the process.
-
It is unclear whether undertakings and conditions are to be retained on
(public) record for life. If the purpose of undertakings is to encourage
remediation and a return to practice, life-long retention of such records
may be counter-productive.
-
Voluntary erasure should be permitted only in health or performance related
cases and only when the deficiencies are admitted by the doctor
and recorded. Conduct cases should not be included to protect the public
and to support the reputation of the profession. Clear annotations
to the records should ensure that any previous deficiencies are investigated
again should the doctor apply for restoration to the register. Other
regulators seeking information about a doctor should be informed of the
circumstances of a voluntary erasure.
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[06 August 2009]
|
