professionalism and fitness to practise processes results from our medical school survey 1 may 2015...
TRANSCRIPT
Professionalism and Fitness to Practise processes
Results from our medical school survey
1 May 2015
Dr Victoria GaudenPolicy Manager GMC
GMC/MSC guidance review
GMC/MSC guidance review - milestones
Consultation to commence August 2015
12 week public consultation
Launch of new guidance – Q1 2016
Implementation – September 2016
GMC/MSC guidance review
Student professional values – an interpretation of Good Medical Practice for medical students
Student professionalism and fitness to practise – guidance for medical schools and universities on low level concerns and fitness to practise processes
High level framework outlining the process from monitoring of low level concerns to fitness to practise
Additional web based resources
GMC/MSC survey 2014
In autumn 2014 we surveyed all medical schools.
Processes for low level concerns and student fitness to practise.
Responses received from all 35 medical schools.
Professionalism and FTP process survey
Conduct Section 1: Low level conduct concerns Section 2: Threshold for fitness to practise Section 3: Investigation process Section 4: Conduct issues – fitness to practise
Health Section 5: Low level health issues Section 6: Health issues – Fitness to practise cases
Appeals Section 7: Process
Professionalism and FTP process survey
Low level concerns
All medical schools have a system for addressing low level concerns.
For the majority (33) this is at medical school level.
Health and misconduct issues dealt with by the same process in most schools.
Six have a separate process or specific committee for dealing with health.
Who deals with low level conduct concerns?
26
9Committee(s)
Senior staff only
Addressing low level concerns
215
3
2
4
No warnings or sanctions
Warning only
Warning and conditions
Warning, conditions, suspension
Other
13
33
2
4
No warnings or sanc-tionsWarning onlyWarning and condi-tions Warning, conditions, suspension Other
Powers for addressing low level concerns – by committee
Powers for addressing low level concerns – by individual
7
2
Thresholds for FTP and investigation process
15 schools said they use GMC/MSC guidance to determine threshold.
Three mentioned a specific structure for referral: three concern forms/warnings, red on RAG rating.
Most schools (30) specified they appoint a dedicated investigating officer.
Can cases go directly to FTP?
25
5
5
23
10
2Yes
No
No answer
Conduct
Health
Occupational Health
27
7
1Yes
No
No answer
Can students self refer to OH?
FTP Committee – roles and training
Usually a pool, including senior clinical and academic staff, and sometimes lay and/or student members.
Training varies. Almost all have E&D training for staff, but it appears that this is standard for all staff rather than specific to FTP role.
FTP Committee – highest level
12
49
1
9
Medical school
College
Faculty
Faculty group
University
FTP Committee – guidance
Is written guidance provided to students?
32
1 2 Specific written guidance
Info on website
Unclear or no info
FTP Committee – legal representation
Is the student permitted legal representation?
26
8
2 Yes No No info
FTP Committee - outcomes
Warnings Undertakings Conditions Suspension Expulsion0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 30
26
33
35 35
FTP Committee – information
Is the student given an outcome letter?
35
Yes
No
Appeals – first stage
Level of first stage of appeal
15
3
2
3
4University
Faculty
College
Medical school
Unclear
Appeals – grounds for appeal
On what grounds can a student appeal a committee decision?
32
31
9
10
6 Procedural irregularities
New evidence
Disproportionate sanction
Unreasonable/flawed decision
Predjudice/bias/discrimination
Appeals – second stage
Is there a second stage of appeal?
12
22
1Yes
No
No info
Conclusion
Processes vary between medical schools.
They have evolved considerably since our guidance was first published in 2007.
We will produce updated guidance that is flexible enough to use within existing processes.
Professionalism: holistic approaches to health
“A set of values, behaviours, and relationships that underpins the trust the public has in doctors.”