‘You feel you've been bad, not ill’: Sick doctors’ experiences of interactions with the General Medical Council

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the views of sick doctors on their experiences with the General Medical Council (GMC) and their perception of the impact of GMC involvement on return to work.DesignQualitative study.SettingUK.ParticipantsDoctors who had been away from work for at least 6 months with physical or mental health problems, drug or alcohol problems, GMC involvement or any combination of these, were eligible for inclusion into the study. Eligible doctors were recruited in conjunction with the Royal Medical Benevolent Fund, the GMC and the Practitioner Health Programme. These organisations approached 77 doctors; 19 participated. Each doctor completed an in-depth semistructured interview. We used a constant comparison method to identify and agree on the coding of data and the identification of central themes.Results18 of the 19 participants had a mental health, addiction or substance misuse problem. 14 of the 19 had interacted with the GMC. 4 main themes were identified: perceptions of the GMC as a whole; perceptions of GMC processes; perceived health impacts and suggested improvements. Participants described the GMC processes they experienced as necessary, and some elements as supportive. However, many described contact with the GMC as daunting, confusing and anxiety provoking. Some were unclear about the role of the GMC and felt that GMC communication was unhelpful, particularly the language used in correspondence. Improvements suggested by participants included having separate pathways for doctors with purely health issues, less use of legalistic language, and a more personal approach with for example individualised undertakings or conditions.ConclusionsWhile participants recognised the need for a regulator, the processes employed by the GMC and the communication style used were often distressing, confusing and perceived to have impacted negatively on their mental health and ability to return to work.

The impact of complaints procedures on the welfare, health and clinical practise of 7926 doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

“…This was illustrated in a recent study that reported that sick doctors under investigation stated that the processes and communication style employed by the GMC were often distressing, confusing and perceived to have impacted negatively on their mental health and ability to return to work. 20 …”

Using clinical supervision to improve the quality and safety of patient care: a response to Berwick and Francis

“…Even if we solve the problem of access, for some doctors, needing to have clinical supervision is thought to be a sign of weakness [ 59 ]. Others view private reflection, for example writing a diary or blog or reading literature as more effective.…”

Fit to practise? Processes for dealing with misconduct among pharmacists in Australia, Canada, the UK and US

“…The MPTS has attracted much critical scrutiny since its formation, both as a discrete organisation, and has the part of the regulatory framework for healthcare professions in the UK. [26][27][28][29][30] The further separation of investigation and adjudication by transferring the adjudicative function from the MPTS to the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) was considered by the Law Commission's 2014 review of healthcare regulation: however, it ultimately decided that the MPTSthough not fully separate from the GMC -did have a high degree of independence, and recommended that other healthcare regulators move towards such a system. [31] To date, no regulator -including the GPhC -has done so.…”