Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Regulation needs new legislation to get lighter

Terence Stephenson
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.17-3-197
Clin Med June 2017
Terence Stephenson
General Medical Council, London, UK
Roles: chair
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

The General Medical Council (GMC) has been regulating doctors since 1858 and our purpose is clear: we protect the public by deciding which doctors practise in the UK, set standards that doctors must follow throughout their careers and take action to prevent doctors putting the safety of patients or public confidence at risk.

The GMC was originally set up by Act of Parliament in 1858 to help the public tell a qualified doctor from a quack. Modern healthcare is more complex than that. Demands on professionals and the health system have changed dramatically and we cannot stand still. We need to keep examining our role so that regulation remains relevant.

We know that the vast majority of doctors are hard-working professionals doing an exceptional job in often difficult circumstances. Very few have action taken against them under our fitness to practise procedures – there are 267,000 doctors on our register and less than 100 doctors are struck off each year. Our main interest is in supporting improvement and that means moving upstream to support good practice for the majority, not just fishing downstream for the minority who find themselves in our fitness to practise procedures.

That’s why our work in education and training, standard setting and revalidation are really the heart of what we should be doing. It makes regulation relevant to far more professionals than will ever engage with our fitness to practise processes.

If our job is to protect patients from harm and support the profession to be good doctors, then it doesn’t make sense to be spending most of our time dealing with fitness to practise issues where harm has already happened. Nor should we underestimate the impact that fitness to practise procedures have on doctors themselves and their confidence in regulation, regardless of the outcome.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t take action when things go wrong. But if most of our resources are directed towards that, it becomes more difficult to work constructively with the majority of doctors to support good practice and improvement. The more we can shift regulation upstream, the better we can promote good practice and potentially limit harm downstream.

We are moving in the right direction. In 2010, we introduced our Employer Liaison Service to engage with responsible officers and share information better. We’ve established our Doctor Support Service for those doctors going through fitness to practise processes and piloted provisional enquiries, closing down cases more quickly and reducing the number of full investigations we carry out. We would like to introduce this for single clinical incidents, reducing further the time and stress expended on investigations that could be dealt with locally.

But to make further reforms we need new legislation to make regulation more agile. Our current legislation was introduced when the GMC saw just a few hundred cases per year – we now receive around 9,000 complaints each year.

With legislative reform we could reduce unnecessary investigations, decrease stress on doctors, better manage the expectations of complainants and reduce fitness to practise costs. We also want to speed up the process when it is necessary to go to a hearing. At present, we cannot restrict a doctor’s practice by issuing the most severe sanctions, like suspension or erasure, without holding a public hearing – even when a doctor accepts what has happened and is willing to accept the sanction. Our job is to protect the public, not punish doctors, and hearings should only be used to resolve disputes over evidence.

If we’re serious about regulating further upstream we need a more proportionate suite of regulatory sanctions for addressing concerns about medical education. The power to remove all trainees from a trust or withdraw recognition of a medical school is like taking a hammer to a nut. A more nuanced and escalating suite of sanctions would help us to take decisive action earlier and avoid the need for nuclear options later on.

The legislation underpinning our work is now 30 years old. We understand that the government will consult on the future of professional regulation early in 2017 – this can’t come soon enough.

Clunky, legally driven processes slow us down and pile unnecessary stress on doctors and their patients. We need new legislation to bring medical regulation into the 21st century.

Conflicts of interest

Professor Terence Stephenson is chair of the General Medical Council and a practising consultant paediatrician.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2017. All rights reserved.
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Regulation needs new legislation to get lighter
Terence Stephenson
Clinical Medicine Jun 2017, 17 (3) 197; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-3-197

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Regulation needs new legislation to get lighter
Terence Stephenson
Clinical Medicine Jun 2017, 17 (3) 197; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-3-197
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Conflicts of interest
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The past, the present, and the future: reflecting on ­medical history as we welcome new leaders
  • Targeting limited NHS resources to affect optimal care
Show more Editorials

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2023 by the Royal College of Physicians