Both medical professionals and patients are far too vulnerable to take risks with those who may have even been caught in criminal activities, even if this was some time ago. They should not be part of medical regulation.
Some organizations with criminal intent may actually have the program of infiltrating regulators.
Doctors4Justice would like to see better scrutiny of staff and panelists at the General Medical Council.General Medical Council has been engaged in persecution of locum doctors in particular for many years now but these doctors get CRB checks once a year at least and sometimes more frequently on changes of organizations where they work or employment agencies which find them work. General Medical Council employs doctors in permanent jobs and these doctors may had one CRB check many years ago when they were first employed.
6 comments:
I fully agree with this proposal which needs to be formally addressed by the Commons Health Select Committee as the following article provides evidence that GMC has concealed criminal activity of its own member and chair of the PCC Prof. Peter Richards and the irony is that he was knowingly allowed by the GMC to continue chairing the PCC/FTPP hearings despite his involvement in covering up financial corruption. I am not sure whats the validity of all those cases in which Prof.Richards has been involved and whether the affected doctors should consider a legal action against the GMC which portray as protecting patients but the reality is that on many occasions it has protected those who, in fact, are responsible for poor standard of care and/or involved in criminal offences.
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/gmc-encourage-whistleblowing-anyone-believe-it
"The GMC to encourage whistleblowing" - anyone believe it?
Mon, 2011-08-22 14:47
The House of Commons Health Select Committee believes that the GMC
should send a clear signal to doctors that they must report concerns about
a fellow doctor.[1] My experiences suggest that the GMC itself has been
involved in concealing misconduct.
As chair of the medical committee of a government recognised national
organisation, I reported a group of doctors, because the committee had
concerns about their research.[2] It involved injecting a radioactive
isotope into patients suffering from a neurological illness. Before
investigating the allegations, the GMC investigated me for the counter-
charge of disparaging the doctors. The GMC investigated the allegations
against the doctors only after clearing me, but allowed the two most
senior doctors to voluntarily remove their names from the Medical
Register, which meant that the charges that they had covered up misconduct
could not be investigated. The GMC then confirmed that ethics committee
and ARSAC approvals had not been obtained. No consent forms were
available. It was stated that patients were only asked to give verbal
consent. The GMC decided that it was unable to adjudicate on allegations
of data fabrication because the authors failed to produce the data. Many
might consider failure to produce data at the request of the GMC prima
facia evidence of falsification. The GMC held no public hearing and issued
no public statement. The senior doctors involved, including a medical
professor and a consultant in nuclear medicine, who told the GMC that they
did not understand the requirements for ethics approval and for
administration of radioactive isotopes, were given private warnings and
advice.
In 2002, Dr Clive Handler was suspended from the Medical Register
after I reported him to the GMC for financial misconduct.[2,3] Dr Handler
had left Northwick Park Hospital in 1998 after an inquiry there revealed
the misconduct. The GMC was informed that a severance agreement between
the hospital and Dr Handler included an agreement not to inform the police
or the GMC. The hospital trust board, including the Medical Director,
Professor Peter Richards approved the agreement. At the time Professor
Richards was a GMC member. When Dr Handler appeared before the
Professional Conduct Committee, Professor Richards was the Committee's
chairman and I was amazed to witnessed the bizarre conduct of a
dysfunctional organisation. Professor Richards had to stand-down from
hearing the case because of his involvement in the cover-up. Despite that,
Professor Richards returned to chairing subsequent PCC hearings.
The messages from these cases are clear. Ordinary doctors who report
misconduct may be victimised by the GMC and the GMC tolerates its own
members concealing crime.
The Health Select Committee should be asking "quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?"
Yes, i too agree in full!!!!!
The Enhanced Criminal Records Checks must be mandatory for all GMC staff on annual basis and they must declare any pending police investigations or court cases.
The high impact outcome for black and ethnic minority doctors (which now include doctors from Eastern European countries who are, at times, treated worst than all)is of the GMC treating doctors differently because of they have different names, colours, positions and accent. This was rightly highlighted by the Commons Health Select Committee in its first annual report on the GMC accountability on 26 Jul 11.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhealth/1429/142907.htm
''19. The Committee appreciates the seriousness with which the GMC has treated the suggestion that doctors from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are over-represented in fitness to practise cases. The finding that this relates to overseas trained doctors and not ethnicity per se does not alter the fact that a problem exists. (Paragraph 53)''
I thanks BMA to publish this interesting article and exposing the GMC in the public interest. Despite its claim that it acts in the patients' interest, the evidence shows entirely different. Not sure how many cases like Prof Peter Richards' are under reported because of the GMC concealing misconduct of its own ickslyicronies.
I'll immediately clutch your rss as I can not to find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me recognise in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.
My site > buy articles
cI think Commons HSC should be vigilant when investigating GMC as it may be misleading like the CQC as can be seen in the following news clip,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9045478/Whistle-blowers-are-the-unsung-heroes-of-the-NHS.html
Whistle-blowers are the unsung heroes of the NHS
Everyone working in the NHS should be free to criticise bad working practices without fearing for their livelihoods.
All NHS employees should feel free to speak out against bad practice Photo: ALAMY
By Max Pemberton
7:30AM GMT 30 Jan 2012
It takes bravery and courage to stand up and speak out when the stakes are high. While many of us like to think we are possessed of that fortitude, in reality, few of us are. We therefore owe a considerable debt of gratitude to those NHS whistle-blowers who have publicly denounced malpractice, corruption or poor care, often risking their jobs in the process.
They are the unsung heroes of the health service, who often receive appalling treatment at the hands of furious managers. Behind closed doors, there are attempts to strike deals with such staff, forcing them to keep quiet. Healthcare workers are frequently required to sign confidentiality agreements if they quit their job over a dispute with their NHS trust. For fear of ruining their careers entirely and receiving no severance package, many capitulate and sign on the dotted line.
Last year, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Channel 4 found that doctors routinely had to sign contracts forbidding them to talk publicly about the trust they worked for. Furthermore, three trusts were found to have made clinicians sign contracts specifically banning them from talking to the General Medical Council, the organisation responsible for regulating doctors.
These gagging clauses have no place in a public institution such as the NHS, where being forced to keep silent puts patients’ welfare at risk. The public has a right to know if there are problems in the NHS, and managers have a duty to ensure that this information is freely available.
For a while now, politicians have been saying that NHS whistle-blowers must be protected, but little has been done to ensure this. Although a helpline was launched at the end of last year for NHS employees who had concerns, there seemed no way of ensuring that those who spoke out would be protected. It appears, however, that at last the problems are being taken seriously, in some quarters at least. The GMC last week announced that it will be writing to every doctor, advising that they never sign a contract that contains a gagging clause to prevent them speaking out against bad practice.
The GMC is rightly emphasising that such clauses interfere with a doctor’s duty of care towards a patient. But while this move must be applauded, it seems that this focus on openness and patient welfare hasn’t reached every corner of the NHS. It has emerged that the Care Quality Commission (CQC)- the health watchdog responsible for protecting whistle-blowers - has, itself, asked at least six former employers to sign confidentiality agreements. The CQC offered six individuals severance packages on condition that they signed a contract promising that they would not ''make or repeat any statement which disparages or is intended to disparage the goodwill or reputation of the CQC or any Specified Person’’.
This is the same CQC that has been dogged by controversy and claims that it is failing patients in its role as regulator for NHS hospitals and care homes. A damning report by the Health Select Committee last September accused the CQC of not doing enough to protect patients and focusing on bureaucracy instead. It has also been found to have misled Parliament over the number of inspections it has undertaken, and, in 2009, a leaked letter revealed that employers had complained of a “bullying culture.
cI think Commons HSC should be vigilant when investigating GMC as it may be misleading like the CQC as can be seen in the following news clip,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9045478/Whistle-blowers-are-the-unsung-heroes-of-the-NHS.html
Whistle-blowers are the unsung heroes of the NHS
Everyone working in the NHS should be free to criticise bad working practices without fearing for their livelihoods.
All NHS employees should feel free to speak out against bad practice Photo: ALAMY
By Max Pemberton
7:30AM GMT 30 Jan 2012
It takes bravery and courage to stand up and speak out when the stakes are high. While many of us like to think we are possessed of that fortitude, in reality, few of us are. We therefore owe a considerable debt of gratitude to those NHS whistle-blowers who have publicly denounced malpractice, corruption or poor care, often risking their jobs in the process.
They are the unsung heroes of the health service, who often receive appalling treatment at the hands of furious managers. Behind closed doors, there are attempts to strike deals with such staff, forcing them to keep quiet. Healthcare workers are frequently required to sign confidentiality agreements if they quit their job over a dispute with their NHS trust. For fear of ruining their careers entirely and receiving no severance package, many capitulate and sign on the dotted line.
Last year, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Channel 4 found that doctors routinely had to sign contracts forbidding them to talk publicly about the trust they worked for. Furthermore, three trusts were found to have made clinicians sign contracts specifically banning them from talking to the General Medical Council, the organisation responsible for regulating doctors.
These gagging clauses have no place in a public institution such as the NHS, where being forced to keep silent puts patients’ welfare at risk. The public has a right to know if there are problems in the NHS, and managers have a duty to ensure that this information is freely available.
For a while now, politicians have been saying that NHS whistle-blowers must be protected, but little has been done to ensure this. Although a helpline was launched at the end of last year for NHS employees who had concerns, there seemed no way of ensuring that those who spoke out would be protected. It appears, however, that at last the problems are being taken seriously, in some quarters at least. The GMC last week announced that it will be writing to every doctor, advising that they never sign a contract that contains a gagging clause to prevent them speaking out against bad practice.
The GMC is rightly emphasising that such clauses interfere with a doctor’s duty of care towards a patient. But while this move must be applauded, it seems that this focus on openness and patient welfare hasn’t reached every corner of the NHS. It has emerged that the Care Quality Commission (CQC)- the health watchdog responsible for protecting whistle-blowers - has, itself, asked at least six former employers to sign confidentiality agreements. The CQC offered six individuals severance packages on condition that they signed a contract promising that they would not ''make or repeat any statement which disparages or is intended to disparage the goodwill or reputation of the CQC or any Specified Person’’.
This is the same CQC that has been dogged by controversy and claims that it is failing patients in its role as regulator for NHS hospitals and care homes. A damning report by the Health Select Committee last September accused the CQC of not doing enough to protect patients and focusing on bureaucracy instead. It has also been found to have misled Parliament over the number of inspections it has undertaken, and, in 2009, a leaked letter revealed that employers had complained of a “bullying culture.
Post a Comment