The GMC are conducting a review into their ‘fitness to practise’ FTP, procedures.

The independent review into deaths of Doctors who have been on their Register, awaiting FTP, is about to be published soon one hopes.

I have decided to write the GMC a last minute contribution to this consultation.

I am on currently on the Medical Register, having been erased from it in 2006/7. It is beyond reasonable doubt that I was severely ill with an alcohol dependence syndrome.

You’ll get fewer people than me wishing the GMC well, still.

I feel that the support for unwell Doctors in the National Health Service, and any hunger for scalps of Doctors will feed into this.

The question is whether the GMC can fit itself into a wider system of learning from mistakes and also supporting Doctors ‘in trouble’.

I have learnt much from my time, not least becoming into recovery from alcoholism, and being physically disabled for the first time.

But I thought it would be incorrect not for me to make some polite views known. As I say, I wish the GMC well. I am also regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, so I will expect the GMC to obey a new Act of Clinical Regulation if it comes into law pursuant to the English Commission’s proposals.

 

 

 

General Medical Council
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW

Dear Sir

Re GMC Consultation over fitness to practice procedures

It is with interest I have been following your consultation over fitness to practice (FTP) procedures for the medical profession.

I have thus far tried to keep out of these discussions. I myself was only restored to the medical register earlier this year pursuant to a full Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel hearing. I can say with all honesty that being returned to your Medical Register was the happiest moment of my entire life. I consider a massive honour to be there now, and indeed became quite tearful taking about it at the recent BMA Careers Fair held in North London a few weeks ago.

My regulation with the General Medical Council (GMC) has been simultaneously ‘the best of times and the worst of times’. I had resisted of commenting on it, because I can hardly been said to have been detached from the processes. But I have gone through the full regulatory loop.

I also have, since my erasure in 2006, re-trained in law, having even obtained a Masters of Law. I feel that proportionality runs like letters through a stick of rock in all the work the legal profession does. Balancing competing interests is what lawyers do. It is what the GMC has done since 1858, reflected as well in your current tagline.

I have also, as explanation, successfully completed a MBA. I decided to study an area called ‘performance management’. I don’t feel this term is particularly helpful, but the discipline has a lot to offer both the legal and medical profession. I had become regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority back in January 2011, following a full due diligence procedure.

At the outset, I should wish to apologise for this short note. But I was moved by your current Chair, Prof Terence Stephenson, who told an audience of us at the Practitioners Health Programme in Swiss Cottage, London, that change is totally possible; however, it tends to be ineffective through loud criticism from the sidelines.

That is why I wish to address your concerns head on.

I feel personally my erasure was completely correct. In response to the Chairman of my MPTS panel who asked me whether my time had ‘gone badly’, I disagreed; I said “it was a complete disaster”.

Nearly a year after direction to erasure, in 2007 June I was blue lighted into the Royal Free Hospital. I had a cardiac arrest and epileptic seizure, with a rampant acute bacterial meningitis. I was then kept on life support for six weeks. I became physically disabled. The NHS, though, saved my life.

I have now been in recovery for seven years at least. I do not in any way condone the events which led to my erasure, but in law I believe that ‘but for’ my alcoholism these events would not have happened.

The direction of travel seems pretty clear. Despite a temporary stalling in the response to the English Law Commission, I feel it is likely the proposals for a root and branch reform of clinical regulation will take place shortly. I full support Niall Dickson in this.

Patient safety is paramount. But the balancing of competing interests is not the reputation of Doctors or the reputation of the regulator, but rather the needs of the patients compared to Doctors trying to do their professional work.

It is often forgotten that many Doctors feel mortified if they make a mistake. But the sheer volume of medical mistakes made daily, for example in medication errors, makes it untenable that every doctor who has ever made a mistake should face a tough public sanction.

Furthermore, cracking down too heavily on Doctors in the medical profession is completely countercurrent to the drive to learn from mistakes in the NHS. There should be a learning culture, and in the drive for quality complaints should be acted upon as gold-dust.

I have every confidence that a well respected medical profession will be possible through a well respected GMC. Ensuring high standards in medical profession is not only achieved through regulation. It will only be possible if seniors in the medical profession show leadership as to the skills they wish to see flourish in the health and care sectors.

There is no doubt for me that the investigations process is too long. There are clear ways in which the GMC departs from the standard English law (e.g. regards costs, telling you how long investigations will take, ambiguities in the civil standard of proof of applied). During that time, the mental health of certain Doctors appearing before the GMC will markedly deteriorate due to stress. Low self esteem is a massive problem in people like me who have faced alcoholism or, in the case of others, other substance misuse problems. When you add to this the trial by media which is out of the GMC’s control, the perfect storm can be utterly disastrous.

One of the principal ways in which the GMC departs from the law currently is how there is little emphasis to manage disputes at a local level. Mediation and arbitration is very important under the civil procedure rules of English law, prior to litigation. The GMC approach is adversarial.

I should like enforcement of the current code of conduct, with a view to solving problems rather than publicly sanctioning Doctors as the key priority, to be important. The enforcement of the national minimum wage, for example, has proved problematic, despite it being a very good piece of legislation. Likewise, one can easily argue that requirements for Doctors to express concerns about inadequate resources, or a duty of candour, are already enshrined in the code of conduct, and have been so for many years now.

I mean my short note with complete goodwill. The GMC has an incredibly important function to perform. I am currently under two professional regulators. Since my erasure, I have spent 7 years in recovery, nearly finished five books and graduated in three degrees and one diploma, so rehabilitation is perfectly possible in my view.

As such it’s going to be impossible for the GMC to ‘do outreach’ as regards the health of Doctors. I openly admitted to your MPTS panel that I failed in not putting myself under a GP. I worry about junior Doctors who are worried to seek help over medical issues, because of concerns about their careers. Patient safety is paramount. During time of a lengthy investigation by the GMC, with mental illness not under control, a Doctor due to be appearing in front of you can go from poor health to catastrophic health. They can become in total denial and lack insight.

Whilst I will note why you may not wish to ask about health issues because of various statutory instruments in the English law, one might consider whether it might be proportionate for there to be a ‘middle man’ overseeing sick Doctors. This is essential for separation of powers between the regulator and the regulated. The Practitioners Health Programme and Doctors Benevolent Fund deserve national resourcing. This is not solely an economic case; it is a moral one, I strongly feel.

I trust the GMC will act impressively in response to these demanding issues in due course. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need to.

Kind regards.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Shibley Rahman

cc [REDACTED]