The General Medical Council was formed in the Mid-19th Century and has been responsible for maintaining first a register of medical professionals and subsequently took on more government mandated regulatory activity.
The need for a new regulator for doctors, distinct from the General Medical Council (GMC), can be driven by various factors, including a lack of confidence in how the GMC functions. While the GMC is currently responsible for regulating the medical profession in the United Kingdom, there might be considerations for establishing a separate regulatory body. Here are several reasons that might be cited for the need of a new regulator:
- Specialisation and Expertise:
- A major concern of many doctors is that the specialised nature of the GMC is being diluted by the new plans to also regulate new healthcare professionals (notably Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates). A new regulator could be established to refocus specifically on physicians, ensuring a deeper understanding and more targeted regulation in a time of immense change.
- Efficiency and Effectiveness:
- A new regulator might be more efficient in handling issues of significant concern, especially related to disciplinary hearing and investigation. Acknowledged in both the national press and by the GMC there is immense concern about the well-being of doctors under investigation with suicide rates being high. There are also concerns about the discrimination with higher percentages of BAME doctors under investigation, and also the speed at which investigations take place.
- Adaptability to Technological Advances:
- With rapid advancements in medical technology, a new regulator could be designed to adapt more quickly to changes in medical practice and incorporate technological considerations in its regulatory framework.
- Patient Safety and Advocacy:
- The key focus of a medical regulator would be to focus on patient safety, however significant concern remains that the current regulator has more of a robust attitude towards doctors and will often demonstrate in their decision-making a preference for outcomes that will assuage perceived public concerns. Whereas, the view of many is that a regulator should work harder to support improvements in a fair way, and patient/public education.
- Professional Standards:
- A new regulator could be established to set and enforce professional standards specific to physicians, ensuring that practitioners in those areas adhere to the highest standards of care and practice. These professional standards have often been diluted with guidances that are arbitrary in nature and more reactive than well thought out. Broader stakeholder engagement from the paying membership should be part of the setting of professional standards.
- Reduction of Workload for the GMC:
- As the GMC now seeks to regulate Physician and Anaesthesia Associates, a new regulator could alleviate the workload on the GMC, allowing it to better focus on broader issues affecting the entire medical profession.
- Improved Accountability:
- A new regulator might be designed to enhance accountability, providing more targeted oversight and holding practitioners to account for their actions within those areas.
- Innovation and Research:
- To foster innovation and research in specific medical domains, a specialised regulator could be established to create an environment that encourages advancements while maintaining ethical and safety standards.
- Global Standards Compliance:
- Some argue that a specialised regulator could better align with international standards and practices in specific medical disciplines, facilitating collaboration and recognition on a global scale.
- Public Perception and Trust:
- Establishing specialised regulatory bodies may enhance public perception and trust in the medical profession, as it demonstrates a commitment to thorough oversight and accountability in each specialty. At present there is a perceived lack of balance in how doctors are treated, this has been notably seen in court cases which have led to the GMC walking back its decisions (see case example)
- Streamlined Processes:
- A new regulator might be able to streamline its processes, making it more responsive and efficient in handling issues without the need for broader considerations. Speedy investigations are essential in order to bring satisfactory and consistent conclusions. The aforementioned suicide rate/suicidal thoughts whilst under investigation could be alleviated if investigations were carried out at a quicker pace, but also the consistency in decision making needs to be reviewed. Recent news stories have seen international doctors punished for using incorrect wording in emails, whilst others who have been convicted of serious crimes escaping any significant sanction.
- Tailored Education and Training:
- A dedicated regulatory body could play a role in shaping and ensuring the quality of education and training programs in specific medical specialties, contributing to the development of highly skilled professionals.
- Money & Leadership
- The GMC has over 300000 doctors on the register and charges a majority of them around £400 annually for a license. With all the current concerns, the fact that doctors are paying almost £120,000,000 to a regulatory body in which it has no confidence creates a strong argument for a new regulator.
- The GMC is a registered charity that utilises the license fee to provide significant corporate perks to its employees in a bid to appear like an attractive employer, including private healthcare.
- The current leadership of the GMC is very closely politically affiliated to the government, with the current chief executive being appointed from within the ranks of the DHSC and no medical background.
It’s important to note that the establishment of a new regulatory body involves careful consideration of potential benefits and drawbacks. The effectiveness of any regulatory system ultimately depends on its ability to uphold professional standards, ensure patient safety, and adapt to the evolving landscape of medicine.
This article is an opinion piece, and a reflection of what an ideal regulator would do.