Policy responses and statements

Name of organisation:

General Medical Council

Name of policy document:

Proposed changes to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004

Deadline for response:

22 May 2009

Note: The GMC is consulting on a package of proposed amendments to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 (the Rules). The current Rules were introduced in November 2004, following extensive consultation. The rules are supported by detailed guidance. The Rules and guidance provide the framework for our fitness to practise procedures. The GMC's fitness to practise powers focus on the most serious concerns that may call into a question a doctor’s fitness to practise and suitability to retain unrestricted registration as a doctor.

Since they were introduced, the GMC has continued to monitor the operation of the Rules and has identified a number of areas where improvements are required. The proposed improvements arise both from legal advice in relation to individual cases and more generally from the GMC's operational experience, since the reformed procedures were implemented.

The GMC's statutory purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine. In short, its job is to ensure that patients can have confidence in doctors. The GMC does that by controlling entry to the medical register and setting the educational standards for medical schools. It also determines the principles and values that underpin good medical practice and the GMC takes firm but fair action where those standards have not been met. This consultation concerns the GMC's procedures for dealing with doctors who have failed to meet the standards expected of them.

COMMENTS ON
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE RULES 2004

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the General Medical Council on its consultation on the Proposed changes to the Fitness to Practise Rules 2004.

The College has considered the proposed changes and is in the main content, as most relate to fine detail within existing processes or updates for consistency with other changes.  However, the College has comments in relation to the proposal to remove the mandatory requirement to appoint a specialty performance adviser to panels (rule 3(5)(a).  These are as follows:

• If left discretionary, it will be difficult for some panels to predict in advance their need for specialty advice and there may be a delay in proceedings while such advice is sought.

• The College understands that these performance advisers are very variable in experience and would benefit from training for their role in fitness to practise cases

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

[15 May 2009]