Does remediation matter in fitness to practise?

In a previous post, we reported on the truly tragic case of a consultant anaesthetist with an exemplary professional record who died by suicide after being informed of a General Medical Council (GMC) investigation into his fitness to practise. The investigation was initiated following a referral from the police regarding allegations made by a 15-year-old patient who alleged that the doctor had committed a sexual assault whilst she was under his care.  However, the evidence was inconsistent with the doctor being the perpetrator, and no charges were brought against him.

In a case brought by the deceased doctor’s family, the High Court ruled that the GMC did not have a duty of care saying, in summary:

1. It would conflict with the statutory responsibilities of the GMC to impose a duty of care regarding its communications with doctors. The regulatory framework restricts the GMC’s liability for negligence in such circumstances.
2. The GMC’s specific actions (like notifying the doctor) or omissions (things it could have done beforehand) were not found to create a duty of care. The court also noted that the GMC did not assume responsibility for the doctor’s well-being.
3. Such a duty could hinder its ability to effectively conduct investigations and protect the public.
4. Regulators, like the GMC, are not liable in negligence for how they carry out their statutory functions.

Whilst this case was determined on the individual merits of the doctor’s case, it clearly has far-reaching implications for doctors (and other regulated healthcare professionals). 

We have in the past written extensively on the role of GMC in relation to doctors under investigation.  As far back as 2016, the then General Medical Council (GMC) Chief Executive, Niall Dickson, wrote in the Daily Mail, that, speaking about the GMC:

‘We are not here to protect doctors – their interests are protected by others. Our job is to protect the public.‘

The language may have softened somewhat in the last few years, with an increasing emphasis now placed on the role of the GMC in helping to support doctors.  But if you find yourself under investigation, you may quickly find that the GMC is far less concerned about protecting doctors than you first thought – its two main concerns are patient safety and maintaining public confidence in the profession as a whole.

The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear.

How to demonstrate remediation

• Rectifying Behaviour or Performance: Remediation begins with acknowledging that certain practices or behaviours have fallen short of the professional standards required. This might include clinical errors, lapses in judgement, or other issues that compromise patient safety and public trust. The process is designed to correct these issues systematically.
• Reflection and Insight: A key component of remediation is reflective practice. Professionals are encouraged (or sometimes required) to critically examine what went wrong and why. This involves gaining insight into the underlying factors that contributed to the problematic behaviour. Without genuine insight, meaningful remediation cannot occur.
• Structured Interventions: Depending on the nature and severity of the concerns, remediation can take many forms. These might include Additional Training or Education, Mentoring or Coaching, Supervised Practice.  The focus is on outlining clear, measurable objectives and timelines to demonstrate that the problematic issues have been effectively addressed.
• Assessment and Demonstration: Regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council (GMC) or Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), evaluate whether remediation is successful by asking questions like; Is the concern remediable? Has the concern been remedied? Is it highly unlikely that the conduct will be repeated?

Unique and practical courses focusing on impairment, reflection, insight, and remediation

Insight Works Training has been developed specifically to address this.  The courses are unique and practical focussing solely on taking health and care registrants through the process of impairment, reflection, insight and remediation, focussing on the area where nearly all professionals fall down – proving, evidencing, and demonstrating them.

Insight Works Training offers courses on:

• Impairment, reflection, insight, and remediation;
• Restoration for healthcare practitioners who are considering making an application for restoration back onto the register;
• Probity, Ethics and Professionalism for Health and Social Care Professionals; and
• 1:1 mentoring programme specifically designed for those facing fitness to practise or restoration hearings.

Kings View Medical Defence are specialist medical defence 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.  Through this we have gained the reputation as leading medical defence specialists with an excellent reputation for customer service and care.

We pride ourselves on complete transparency and all quotations are given with fixed fees for preparation and representation, agreed in advance and payable in stages. No hidden costs ever.