MDU welcomes scheme to reduce stressful GMC investigations for doctors
The Medical Defence Union (MDU) has welcomed the expansion of the GMC’s provisional enquiry scheme aimed at speeding up the GMC’s fitness to practise procedures. From 1 July cases where doctors are involved in a single clinical incident will be included, further reducing the impact of GMC investigations.
The provisional enquiries scheme, which was first piloted in 2014, identifies at an early stage cases that, even if the facts were proven, would not amount to impaired fitness to practise. The MDU has worked with the GMC, using our experience of assisting members to suggest types of cases that could be included and already it has had an impact. The GMC says it expects to avoid a full investigation in 230 cases a year. The scheme also speeds up the process, which reduces stress as doctors with cases in the scheme know far sooner what will happen.
Dr Michael Devlin, MDU head of professional standards and liaison, said:
“The GMC’s scheme has already benefited many of our members. It allows the GMC to close cases early on where they know there is no concern for patients. For example, where doctors have made a genuine, one-off mistake, and it is clear that they have learnt from it.
“We have supported this initiative throughout and hope that the addition of single clinical incidents will reduce the impact of a GMC investigation on a significant number of doctors. It made no sense for doctors who had made a genuine error, apologised to the patient and taken steps to ensure the mistake wasn’t repeated, to be put through the stress of a GMC investigation.
“This represents a step in the right direction by the GMC, but more needs to be done to reduce the impact on doctors of fitness to practise procedures. The GMC had 9,624 complaints in 2014 yet only 218 were referred to a fitness to practise panel in the same year. The GMC needs additional powers to deal with cases more proportionately and we are calling for legal changes to help the GMC to do this. Fitness to practise procedures must protect the public, but must also be fair to the doctors involved.”
