REGULATORY MATTERS
A GMC complaint is no reason for immediate panic. Here medical adviser Mary Peddie runs through the stages in an investigation
Letter from the GMC O
FTEN the first we hear of a GMC complaint is an anguished telephone call from a member to say a letter has arrived from the regulator and they are worried that they will be
struck off and crucified in the tabloid press with friends, family and colleagues reading all about what a terrible doctor they are. Whilst it might be understandable to worry, in our experience very few GMC cases make it beyond written correspondence. Te first task as an adviser – aſter having calmed the member
down – is to try to establish the type of letter received. Is it the first notification the doctor has had stating that the GMC will be investigating a complaint – or is it a letter to say that a complaint has been received but it does not require a formal investigation to be opened at that stage? In either case, the member will need to complete a work details
form which should be sent back to the GMC as soon as possible and definitely by the date on the covering letter, usually a week aſter the date of the notification letter. Details of all medical work should be included, whether paid or unpaid. Normally we advise that no other information or comment should be provided at this stage.
Careful response Members are oſten desperate to tell the GMC their side of the complaint, especially if they have been unaware of any dissatisfaction by the patient, or the family of a deceased patient. Sometimes it may be apparent that the complainant has misinterpreted a situation or has only partial information. It can be difficult to persuade a member that the best course of action is not to fire off a response in the heat of the moment. Anything sent in response at this stage will be copied to the complainant who will
12
then have another opportunity to provide critical comments, or to refute the doctor’s explanation. Sometimes we advise against sending any initial response at all
as there is no obligation to do so. Tis is particularly the case when it is unclear what issues the complainant has with the doctor, or when there are multiple allegations of poor performance or a referral by the doctor’s employer or contractor. Te onus is on the GMC to investigate and decide whether the
issues raised in a complaint are such that there is a reasonable prospect that a doctor’s fitness to practise may be impaired. In some cases, it may not be obvious why a particular doctor is being investigated. In these situations, although it may be tempting to send off detailed comments, in our experience it is unlikely to end the complaint. Furthermore, without a specific issue to focus on, the member runs the risk of saying something which opens up another avenue of investigation for the GMC. It is oſten better to wait for a further written stage when the GMC will provide more specific allegations, sometimes based on an expert report; these are oſten easier to answer.
Send MDDUS all documentation - promptly Before making any detailed response, we will advise the member to send a copy of ALL of the documentation provided to them by the GMC, along with the covering letter as this gives the case reference and contact details of the GMC’s investigation officer. In complex complaints, this documentation may run into several pages (sometimes hundreds) and the quickest way for us to receive the papers is to photocopy the complete bundle and send them by special delivery to our Glasgow office (ensuring that your membership number is included).
SUMMONS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24