Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- Department of Health
- Name of policy document:
- Fitness to Practise Adjudication for Health
Professionals: Assessing different mechanisms for delivery
- Deadline for response:
- 11 October 2010
Background: Professional health regulation
is designed to protect the public by ensuring good standards of practice
among those who are registered with one of the statutory health regulators.
Currently each regulator has powers, and follows set procedures, to
investigate any concerns about the fitness to practise of any of the
professionals it regulates.
Each health regulator investigates complaints, decides which cases
should go to a hearing, prepares cases for the hearing, prosecutes,
and arranges for the adjudication of those cases. Adjudication involves
assessing the evidence, making findings of fact and, if appropriate,
imposing sanctions.
The previous Administration took forward legislation to create a new
body, the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator, which would
be separate from the health regulators and adjudicate separately on
fitness to practise matters. Initially these changes would affect doctors
as registrants of the General Medical Council before then being applied
to those professions regulated by the General Optical Council, and
with a view to applying the same approach for other health professionals
if appropriate.
The Government has reviewed the progress towards implementation of
OHPA and is consulting on whether delivery of adjudication can be delivered
more proportionately through other
COMMENT ON
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
FITNESS TO PRACTISE ADJUDICATION FOR HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS: ASSESSING DIFFERENT MECHANISMS FOR DELIVERY
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (the College) is pleased
to respond to the Department of Health’s consultation on Fitness
to Practise Adjudication for Health Professionals: Assessing different
mechanisms for delivery.
The College notes the importance of maintaining public and professional
confidence in the regulation of the medical profession, and offers
the following comments:
Q1. Should the Government proceed
with its preferred Option – Option 2. Yes or No? Please give
your reasons
The
College agrees that the Government should proceed with Option 2; that
is, it should repeal legislative provisions relating to the Office
of the Health Professions Adjudicator (OHPA) and, in separate legislation,
take forward steps to enhance the independence of adjudication and
modernise existing processes of the General Medical Council (GMC).
It
is recognised that the GMC has made significant changes to fitness
to practise (FTP) procedures in recent years, such as the introduction
of case examiners to consider matters prior to referral to an FTP panel
and the exclusion of Council members from sitting on FTP panels which
has enhanced the independence of the FTP process.
The College notes the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence’s
recent support of the GMC’s focus on continuous improvement and
pilots relating to FTP matters.1
The College is confident that the GMC can continue to adjudicate FTP
matters in a fair and independent manner. Oversight of the GMC
through the Council for Health Regulation provides an additional comfort
that the GMC will be held accountable.
In
light of the substantial increase in the estimated cost to establish
the OHPA, the College accepts the need for financial restraint and
the opportunities to deliver a cost effective, fair and equitable adjudication
process through the GMC
Q2. Do you have any comments
on the identified benefits, costs and risks of the Options that are
detailed in this document and its accompanying impact assessments
and are there any other considerations that the Government should
consider?
The College considers that if Option 2 is adopted, the detail of amendments
to the GMC’s current FTP processes should be the subject of broad
consultation. The strengthening of the independence of the GMC’s
adjudication function from the Council body should be a priority. It
is also noted that many of the changes that the OPHA proposed to make
in relation to the adjudication process could be considered by the
GMC for adoption.
The College is clear that any additional costs incurred by the GMC
in adopting the adjudication procedures of the OHPA should be met from
the Government resources set aside for the OHPA.
The College would be happy to discuss any aspects of the above comments
further.
1. The
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, Performance Review
Report 2009/10: enhancing public protection through improved regulation,
July 2010, Annual Report Vol II, para 11.15 – 11.21.
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
[11 October 2010]
|
