The MDU is calling for the government to reform healthcare professional regulation, to tackle the huge cost of clinical negligence claims and to do more to protect doctors' health and wellbeing. An earlier survey by the MDU found these were among the areas doctors want the government to prioritise.
Dr Caroline Fryar, MDU director of professional services, said: "The emotional strain put on doctors undergoing GMC investigations is enormous and cases take too long to process, often impacting on the doctors' ability to provide much needed care for patients.
"The most recent Professional Standards Authority (PSA) report shows that it takes an average of 102 weeks or nearly two years for the GMC to progress fitness to practise referrals from receipt to final hearing, which is way too long."
One MDU GP member, whose fitness to practise case took over two years before it was finally dropped with no further action, said:
"The investigation took a tremendous toll on my physical and mental health. It affected every aspect of my life and impacted my family. While the complaint was investigated, I had restrictions imposed on my patient interactions. This left me feeling very depressed and I was signed off work for a period. I also became hypertensive, which I feel was because of the stress of the process."
See the doctor's full testimonial below.
The MDU's Dr Fryar continued:
"This member's experience isn't isolated. Undergoing a GMC investigation is one of the most difficult experiences of our members' professional lives. The stress of being under scrutiny during a lengthy and potentially career-ending fitness to practise process can have a devastating impact. Fitness to practise procedures are too rigid, take too long and are governed by outdated legislation.
"The government must prioritise legislative reform to allow the GMC to adopt a more proportionate approach to regulation, to the benefit of both patients and doctors. Doctors have waited a long time for this and meanwhile, physician and anaesthesia associates, who will be regulated by the GMC later this year, will benefit from a new structure. This is, unfair and needs addressing urgently."
Reform of regulation is just one item on the MDU's list of priorities for the government. The MDU's full list is published today in its paper, 'An Agenda for Change', and includes:
Reform of healthcare professional regulation
- Bring forward a Section 60 Order to enable doctors to get the reformed, fairer, more timely and more proportionate model of regulation they have long promised.
- Action on clinical negligence costs
- Repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which will allow courts to factor in the existence of the NHS when determining compensation.
- Tackle disproportionate legal costs by ensuring fixed recoverable costs in lower value clinical negligence claims is promptly enacted.
Action on clinical negligence costs
- Repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which will allow courts to factor in the existence of the NHS when determining compensation.
- Tackle disproportionate legal costs by ensuring fixed recoverable costs in lower value clinical negligence claims is promptly enacted.
Supporting the health and wellbeing of the workforce
- Direct NHS employers to ensure that staff catering and rest facilities are provided, including for those working out of hours.
- Commit to continued funding for programmes like NHS Practitioner Health which can ensure support for doctors when they feel at risk of, or experience burnout.
A senior GP partner and GP trainer endured over two years of a fitness to practise investigation before the case was dropped with no further action. He explained how the investigation impacted him personally:
"The investigation took a tremendous toll on my physical and mental health. It affected every aspect of my life and also impacted my family.
While the complaint was investigated, I had restrictions imposed on my patient interactions. This left me feeling very depressed and I was signed off work for a period. I also became hypertensive, which I feel was because of the stress of the process. I still suffer with hypertension to this day, despite the investigation ending.
I had coaching and mentoring to help me cope with the stress and my colleagues were very supportive.
The same complaint was investigated by NHS England simultaneously and the contrast in the way they dealt with the issue compared to the GMC was stark. I found NHS England much more supportive, they were willing to listen to me.
The GMC process on the other hand seemed very adversarial. I had to ask the GMC to stop emailing me and to deal directly with the MDU as I found their communication style quite abrasive.
The help I received from the MDU was phenomenal. I can't fault the support I received. My medico-legal adviser and solicitor were so supportive. However, I can't help feeling the whole process was such a waste of money - in terms of the costs to MDU members and the GMC.
After two and a half years, the GMC decided not to proceed with the case against me. It was such a relief. There must be a better way of dealing with cases in a less adversarial way and of resolving investigations more promptly.
This has made me more aware of how vulnerable doctors are in the UK and how little control we have over the regulatory process. Our future is very much in the GMC's hands.
If you find yourself in this position, contact your medical defence organisation straight away. It was only through the help of the MDU and the support of my family and colleagues that I was able to get through this ordeal."
This page was correct at publication on 23/09/2024. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.