On 23 September 2013, the General Medical Council ("GMC") announced that, following a thorough investigation, it had taken the decision to close four cases involving doctors who held management
On 23 September 2013, the General Medical Council ("GMC") announced that, following a thorough investigation, it had taken the decision to close four cases involving doctors who held management positions at Stafford Hospital.
The statement released by GMC Chief Executive Niall Dickson confirmed that "we rarely comment on individual cases but given public interest in the events surrounding the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust we are today making an exception."
The statement went on to confirm that the GMC had received legal advice from Tom Kark QC, Leading Counsel to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry, to the effect that there was no realistic prospect of securing a finding against the doctors concerned, as there was not the evidence to establish either misconduct or impairment against any of the doctors. Unusually, and reflecting public concern over the issue, the letter from Mr Kark QC to the GMC confirming this advice was also published on the GMC's website.
It is clear from the statement that the GMC is acutely aware of the difficulties involved in holding those doctors holding managerial positions to account.
Successful prosecutions of such individuals have been few and far between, with the law as it stands being founded on the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311, where the Privy Council spoke of the need for there to be a "sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine" in order for a doctor in a managerial role to be held to account, and the case of R (on the application of Remedy UK Ltd) v the General Medical Council [2010] where the High Court confirmed that conduct involving the exercise of managerial or administrative functions could be described as linked to medical practice when these were part of the day to day practice of a professional doctor, but ultimately determined that the making and implementation of government health policy was not a medical function, even where the policies in issue directly related to doctors and closely affected the medical profession.
It is likely that, given the current focus on the standards of care in NHS Trusts and mortality rates post Mid-Staffs, there will be further cases of alleged managerial misconduct brought to its attention, with similar issues to consider. The GMC together with all commissioning, service provision, other regulatory and ancilliary organisations in healthcare is working through implementation of its response to the Mid Staffs Public Inquiry Report.
The GMC's decisions seem to highlight how even within our complex network of regulatory schemes there are potentially "gaps" in lines of accountability. How the Department of Health seeks to address managerial failures and team or systemic problems will be a real focus in the months to come.
The statement released by GMC Chief Executive Niall Dickson confirmed that "we rarely comment on individual cases but given public interest in the events surrounding the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust we are today making an exception."
The statement went on to confirm that the GMC had received legal advice from Tom Kark QC, Leading Counsel to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry, to the effect that there was no realistic prospect of securing a finding against the doctors concerned, as there was not the evidence to establish either misconduct or impairment against any of the doctors. Unusually, and reflecting public concern over the issue, the letter from Mr Kark QC to the GMC confirming this advice was also published on the GMC's website.
It is clear from the statement that the GMC is acutely aware of the difficulties involved in holding those doctors holding managerial positions to account.
Successful prosecutions of such individuals have been few and far between, with the law as it stands being founded on the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311, where the Privy Council spoke of the need for there to be a "sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine" in order for a doctor in a managerial role to be held to account, and the case of R (on the application of Remedy UK Ltd) v the General Medical Council [2010] where the High Court confirmed that conduct involving the exercise of managerial or administrative functions could be described as linked to medical practice when these were part of the day to day practice of a professional doctor, but ultimately determined that the making and implementation of government health policy was not a medical function, even where the policies in issue directly related to doctors and closely affected the medical profession.
It is likely that, given the current focus on the standards of care in NHS Trusts and mortality rates post Mid-Staffs, there will be further cases of alleged managerial misconduct brought to its attention, with similar issues to consider. The GMC together with all commissioning, service provision, other regulatory and ancilliary organisations in healthcare is working through implementation of its response to the Mid Staffs Public Inquiry Report.
The GMC's decisions seem to highlight how even within our complex network of regulatory schemes there are potentially "gaps" in lines of accountability. How the Department of Health seeks to address managerial failures and team or systemic problems will be a real focus in the months to come.