Better outcomes for doctors facing GMC investigations
Understanding the GMC’s fitness to practise investigation process is key to meaningful engagement, which, in turn, is key to better outcomes for doctors. Legal advice and representation is critical in aiding doctors to understand the GMC expectations, which are complex and legalistic.
Meaningful Engagement
Doctors are required to “… cooperate with formal inquiries and complaints procedures and must offer all relevant information …” to the GMC. This is explained in the Good Medical Practice.
It is important that doctor’s “cooperation” with the GMC is meaningful to make a positive difference to the outcome of their case, and this meaningful engagement remains relevant throughout the entire GMC fitness to practise process and investigation.
For example, not attending the hearing meant that registrants were not able to defend themselves against concerns raised, and panels were more dependent on the statements of witnesses. The registrant’s credibility and reliability as a witness, demonstration of insight, remorse and regret, and any remediation which has taken place are also important aggravating and mitigating factors.
Understanding the GMC’s fitness to practise investigation process
A clear and thorough understanding of the GMC’s fitness to practise process is, however, needed to enable doctors to engage with the process in a meaningful way.
It is a commonly held view that the GMC and MPTS’ fitness to practise processes are universally described as complex, formal and adversarial and doctors need to prepare for a trial in all but name.
This is where legal advice and representation is particularly relevant and significant because this would support and guide doctors through the GMC’s fitness to practise process.
Independent research has shown that “legal advice was seen as important in aiding registrants to understand regulators’ expectations, especially in terms of the need for registrants to demonstrate insight and perhaps to show evidence of remediation activities. Lack of legal representation was, therefore, seen to potentially have an impact in terms of the seriousness of the outcome for registrants who are perhaps unaware of how to present their case to best effect.”
Better outcomes for doctors
It is well recognised that the extent to which a doctor engages with the GMC’s process, from initial complaint to the final hearing, has been shown as vitally important to the severity of sanctions. Conversely, the lack of legal representation has been identified as being associated with more severe sanctions outcomes in fitness to practise cases.
Previous research revealed that – of the two outcomes, suspension or erasure – doctors with legal representation at hearings were significantly more likely to merely be suspended (72%), rather than struck off (28%). In contrast, 69% of self-represented doctors were struck off.
Kings View Barristers
With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence. We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for our clients, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.
Is legal representation the answer?
It is widely accepted and proven that legal representation makes a real difference to the outcome of investigations and results in lesser sanctions for doctors.
What is also unquestionably clear is that GMC investigations and MPTS hearings are complex, daunting, prolonged and legalistic leaving doctors stressed and anxious. Where legal advice and representation can have the biggest impact on this, is helping doctors understand the process, what to expect and how to engage with the GMC during an investigation and hearing.
Research has shown that registrant’s engagement and legal representation can impact on decisions about seriousness, and that the lack of legal representation has been identified as being associated with more severe sanctions outcomes in fitness to practise cases, stating:
“Legal representation was seen as important by participants because legal advice could support and guide registrants through the FtP process, which is complex and legalistic. Legal advice was seen as important in aiding registrants to understand regulators’ expectations, especially in terms of the need for registrants to demonstrate insight and perhaps to show evidence of remediation activities. Lack of legal representation was, therefore, seen to potentially have an impact in terms of the seriousness of the outcome for registrants who are perhaps unaware of how to present their case to best effect.”
A compassionate approach to legal representation
The right legal advice and representation is not just about the legalities and technicalities of a case. Our barristers fully understand the stress and anxiety that doctors experience during prolonged GMC investigations.
We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We never lose sight of the human aspects of FtP investigations and hearings. We will always give an open and honest assessment of cases, but we will marry that with an approach that also supports health and care professionals through the duration of a case.
“I was not optimistic about the case, I felt that it is a lost case that we couldn’t do much about and especially just before the start of the trial I lost my confidence and was very nervous. Mr McCaffrey was there to prove me wrong. He turned everything around in a victorious , panegyric manner. I was stunned.” – CL
Catherine is professional, empathic and very knowledgeable. She provided all the necessary assistance throughout the long thorough investigation. – AR
A colleague recommended me to Catherine. She was very experienced , professional, empathetic , non-judgemental and listened to me. – Mel
I found myself consumed with dark thoughts, isolated and afraid. Stephen worked with me and slowly but surely formulated a plan not to just to fight my case and win, but to build me back up bit by bit so as to prepare me to face external scrutiny and present with confidence to panels where this was necessary. – FJ
What you can Expect when Instructing Kings View
All clients are entitled to an initial, no obligation and free telephone consultation about their case. During this consultation, we will outline the stages and next steps, including indicative timeframes and fixed price quotations for preparation and representation and confirmed in writing at each and every stage.
We understand that timescales are entirely dependent on the stage you are at in proceedings, what work needs to be done and dictated by internal investigations or hearing dates. We always meet those timescales however should more time be needed, then we will apply for such on your behalf and with your permission.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
More News & Articles
General Dental Council close case with no further action
The General Dental Council has closed its investigation into our clients fitness to practise with no further action.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.