GMC correspondence July 2019
09 July 2019
![]()
-----Original Message-----
From: Directors Office Correspondence
To: johnmacfie@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:25
Subject: RE: advice
Dear Professor MacFie
I write to confirm safe receipt of your email below to Anthony. The issues that you have raised are currently being considered and a response will be with you shortly.
Kind regards,
Jenny Ashton
Executive Assistant
Director’s Office, Fitness to Practise
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AW
Email: jenny.ashton@gmc-uk.org
Web: www.gmc-uk.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "John MacFie"
Date: Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM +0100
Subject: Re: advice
To: "Anthony Omo (020 7189 5117)"
Cc: "OCCE Team" , "Jennifer Ashton (0161 250 6952)" , "Gavin Brown (0161 240 8126)"
Dear Anthony,
Many thanks for your prompt response. I have discussed your reply with colleagues. Concerns have been raised about certain aspects of GMC policy. To summarise:
whilst we appreciate your view that it is hoped that employers (and members of the public) would take a proportionate view of information on the MPTS website the fact of the matter is that many will assume that the GMC justifies its decision to list names of doctors in whom no impairment to practice was identified as inferring that the fact of referral is of itself indicative of clinical concern.
therefore, the inferred implication of your policy of listing hearings on the MPTS even in those in whom no impairment of practice was identified is in effect tantamount to saying that the mere fact of an FTP hearing suggests there may have been misconduct.
the GMC policy of insisting that doctors declare previous hearings even if no misconduct was identified again assumes "no smoke without fire" and goes against natural justice.
GMC policy assumes that the very act of being reported presupposes an element of guilt.
There are potentially serious long term unintended consequences of this GMC policy. Sadly, as I am sure you are well aware, it is now not uncommon for there to be conflict between clinicians and managers. In these scenarios, the threat of GMC referral may be used. Whilst your organisation is generally efficient at recognising inappropriate or malicious intent, the reality is that the doctor who has been reported (and who may be completely blameless) is obliged to report the fact that he or she has been referred.This may have major implications to subsequent applications for senior posts, discretionary and ACCEA awards and research grants. These applications may occur many years after a GMC investigation but the doctor is still expected to report them.
In brief, listing names of doctors in whom no evidence of impairment of practice has been identified is unfair and unjust. We would urge you to consider amending your policy such that names are only listed when impairment of any nature is identified.
Further, the assumption of guilt rather than innocence is inferred in your statement " doctors are expected to be honest in declaring their fitness to practise history and would be required, if asked, to declare that they had been subject to an investigation and hearing, and the outcome of that hearing".
I hope you will consider these points.
I would be happy to discuss
Kind Regards
JM
Professor John MacFie MD FRCS FRCP
Mallard Green
Hall Garth Lane
W Ayton
YO13 9JA
01723862733
07764276801
Professor John MacFie MD FRCS FRCP
Mallard Green
Hall Garth Lane
W Ayton
YO13 9JA
01723862733
07764276801
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Omo (020 7189 5117)
To: Clare Marx ; John MacFie
CC: OCCE Team ; Jennifer Ashton (0161 250 6952) ; Gavin Brown (0161 240 8126)
Sent: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 9:16
Subject: RE: advice
Dear John,
I refer to your email below to Clare. I am responding as the officer responsible for the Council’s fitness to practise work.
I don’t know if you are aware but we have a publication and disclosure policy which has been subject to public consultation and approval by our Council, and which covers all publication by the GMC and the MPTS. The policy sets out what the GMC and MPTS publish, why and for how long. It also covers the interplay between publication on the GMC and MPTS websites and the online register, the List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP). The full policy can be accessed via this link: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-documents/dc4380-publication-and-disclosure-policy-36609763.pdf
Your member is correct to report that the MPTS website does show hearings on its website even if there has been no findings of impairment and sanction. This is a factual record of what has happened and anyone reading the determination, which will also be available, will see that there has been no adverse finding about that doctor. The LRMP will show the doctor’s record as being free of restrictions and most employers and members of the public rely on this source for their information about a doctor’s fitness to practise history. We would hope that most Employers would take a proportionate view when considering applications, but in any event, doctors are expected to be honest in declaring their fitness to practise history and would be required, if asked, to declare that they had been subject to an investigation and hearing, and the outcome of that hearing.
I hope this is helpful in clarifying the policy and I would be happy to take your call, if you wish to discuss further.
Kind regards,
Anthony
Anthony Omo
General Counsel
Director, Fitness to Practise Directorate
General Medical Council
Telephone: 020 71895117
Email: anthony.omo@gmc-uk.org
www.gmc-uk.org
From: Clare Marx [mailto:clare.marx@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 June 2019 20:40
To: John MacFie
Cc: Anthony Omo (020 7189 5117)
Subject: Re: advice
Dear John
Very good to hear from you .
I have copied this to our Director for Fitness to Practice who is happy to pick this up with you.
Best wishes
Clare
Clare Marx DBE DL FRCS
On 19 Jun 2019, at 11:45, John MacFie wrote:
Clare,
I trust you are well. I am not sure if this e mail address is still active but felt i would give it a try in first instance!
Clare, as you may be aware, I was successful in getting the "Confederation of |British Surgery" (CBS) officially recognised as a trade union by the Certification Office last year.
I have received an enquiry from one of our members who has drawn my attention to the fact that MPTS hearings remain listed on the GMC web site for 12 months after their completion irrespective of outcome. As such, potential employers see that there has been a hearing which understandably is often a deterrent to interview.
This seems reasonable if there are any conditions on a doctor's practice but a little unfair if the outcome of the tribunal was no impairment and no conditions. No smoke without fire.
Any chance we could discuss?
Kind Regards
John
Professor John MacFie MD FRCS FRCP
Mallard Green
Hall Garth Lane
W Ayton
YO13 9JA
01723862733
0776427680
President
Professor John MacFie
Mallard Green
25, Hall Garth Lane
West Ayton
Scarborough
N Yorks YO 13 9JA
1st July 2019
Dear Anthony,
Re: MPTS hearings
Many thanks for acknowledging receipt of my recent e mail in which I draw your attention to some aspects of GMC policy that have caused concern. I await your reply with interest.
On this same topic I have just been copied into some correspondence to one of our members from Bethany Culshaw, Communications Manager. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Dr ……….,
Thank you for your email.
The MPTS has a statutory duty under the Medical Act 1983 to publish the outcome of all public hearings on our website for a period of 12 months, in order to be open and transparent about our decision-making.
Having advertised the details of a forthcoming public hearing on our website, including a summary of the allegation made against a doctor by the GMC, it is reasonable that members of the public should be able to go back online and see what the outcome of the hearing was.
We are committed to ensuring that the information on our website is clear and accurate and that the outcome of any hearing is easily accessible.
We do not have any influence over how prominently our decisions appear within a Google search of your name, but once the 12 month publication period has elapsed the decision will be removed from our website and should drop off Google searches after that time.
More information about how we publish information relating to hearings can be found here.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Kind regards,
Bethany Culshaw, Communications Manager
This response has been discussed by officers of the CBS. There are a couple of points that we consider pertinent:
The statement: "The MPTS has a statutory duty under the Medical Act 1983 to publish the outcome of all public hearings on our website for a period of 12 months, in order to be open and transparent about our decision-making", is not accurate.
The internet did not exist in 1983 and so there was no trial by social media. The world has moved on. If one is found not guilty (or indeed guilty!) in a court of Law, one’s details do not remain on public view and the same should apply to the GMC ruling. You (the GMC) are effectively breaching Article 8 of the European Declaration on Human Rights (The Right to a Private and Family life). If one is innocent, it should not be on a public facing record. The public can easily check any doctor’s GMC registration without having to go to the library to look at the Medical Register as they had to in 1983 and it can be argued that putting those found wanting on a public facing website is also beyond natural justice.
The Medical Act in 1983 made no reference to web sites.
At the end of Ms Culshaw’s letter there is a statement which reads:
the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hears cases against doctors where serious concerns have been raised and as a result their fitness to practise has been called into question by the General Medical Council.
The clear inference from this is that any referral to MPTS implies that there are concerns which implies an element of guilt before an assumption of innocence.
I would be happy to meet to discuss these issues.
I look forward to hearing from you
Kind Regards
John
John MacFie
Read other news articles