Archive for October, 2009

GMC to lobby EU on language test law change

Healthcare Republic - 31st October 2009 10:15 pm

The GMC has said it will continue to lobby the EU for a change in the law to allow it to language-test doctors, even as other regulators say they have given up.

The 2005 EU directive on the recognition of professional qualifications enabled the free movement of clinicians around Europe, by requiring the GMC and other regulators to accept overseas medical qualifications. But it also bars them from conducting any formal language testing.

As a result, European clinicians may be registered with the GMC despite struggling to understand English. The case of Dr Daniel Ubani, a German doctor who accidentally killed a patient on his first UK out-of-hours shift, highlighted the risks of hiring doctors whose English is not fluent.

A spokeswoman for the GMC said: “We want to be able to systematically test doctors’ English language ability at the point of first registration,” she said. “We continue to press for change both as an independent organisation and with other healthcare regulators.”

She reminded employers that they had a responsibility to conduct interviews, to ensure applicants’ language skills were up to the job.

Read more at Healthcare Republic.

Management consultant spend to be monitored

By Mike Broad - 9:48 pm

The government is to start centrally monitoring the NHS’s expenditure on management consultants from next year.

Earlier this year, the health select committee strongly criticised the government for having little idea of how much the NHS spends on management consultants.

It’s estimated that that management consultants are charging up to £1,000 a day for advice and cost the NHS as much as £600 million in 2005/06.

The government last week conceded that it should collate overall expenditure on management consultancy but warned: “at present, the level of reporting is neither consistent nor complete across organisations. It is therefore the Department of Health’s intention to issue guidance to NHS organisations as part of the financial reporting manual for 2009/10 to bring consistency to this reporting.”

The government will not, however, monitor the day rates that management consultants charge as requested. “It is preferred practice to negotiate costs for a whole piece of work rather than agreeing individual day rates. This process provides protection from the financial risks being exposed if day rate based contracting is used. This makes provision of day rates impossible to provide,” it explained.

The health select committee also recommended that a sample of contracts with management consultants be subject to external peer review. This should include an assessment of the value of consultants’ output.

The government said responsibility for assessing value should rest with trusts and they should draw on the expertise of their non-executive board members.

“Nevertheless, as part the government’s ongoing drive to improve the transparency of NHS expenditure, it will examine steps organisation should be taking to understand the value that is being achieved through the expenditure on management consultancy,” it said.

A BMA spokesperson commented: “It’s good that we’re going to get a clearer idea of the sums being spent on management consultants. Recent estimates indicate that it’s £350 million a year by trusts in England, and around £150million by the DoH. That’s a huge amount of money to be spending on outside opinions at a time when front-line services are being targeted for funding cuts.

“This may be money well spent if it is delivering genuine improvements to the way hospitals operate, but as most doctors will tell you, some of the best ideas are coming from within the NHS, not from the private sector.”

Alan Leaman, chief executive of the Management Consultancies Association, commented: “Management consultants are providing a wide variety of benefits to the NHS, helping to improve patient care and reduce costs for the taxpayer.

“Besides some strategic and practical advice, this is most often about helping to find good solutions to problems and then getting them implemented. We support moves to greater transparency.”

Read a blog on management consultants.

Making equality a reality in mental health services

Dr Dave Anderson, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry - 9:05 pm

It was welcome news when health secretary Andy Burnham announced last week that the NHS, under the new Equality Bill, will have to comply with age discrimination rules by 2012. There is no question that age discrimination exists in the NHS, and the bill - along with New Horizons - is an important step by the government in tackling discrimination.

But the problem cannot be addressed through national action alone. We are in desperate need of local change. Unless services are commissioned, configured and developed locally to better meet the need of older people, discrimination will continue.

The ageing population has been described by researchers as a demographic tsunami, and is the biggest challenge facing health and social care services today. Yet investment and development in mental health services has explicitly excluded older people.

The figures speak for themselves. For every 1 million older people with depression, 850,000 receive no treatment whatsoever. While 50% of younger adults with depression are referred to mental health services, only 6% of older people will receive a referral. And in a recent report by the Healthcare Commission, a service audit found that of 1,300 referrals for psychological therapy only 49 were for people over the age of 65.

There is no justifiable reason why an older person with the same need as a younger person is denied equitable mental health care, yet that is the current position. Earlier this month, the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry launched a new position statement: Age Discrimination in mental health services: making equality a reality.

The statement and accompanying evidence document show how tens of thousands of older people are missing out on vital support and risking serious deterioration in their mental health purely because of arbitrary age limits.

Access to mental health services has traditionally been configured by age. Although having administrative benefits by creating clear accountability of services, this approach may be considered discriminatory, such as when a person attending any specialist mental health service is required to transfer to an older people’s service purely because they have reached the age of 65. In doing so, they can lose benefits of the relationships they’ve formed with those services and be disadvantaged. People over 65 may also be denied access to services available to younger people, such as 24-hour crisis resolution and home treatment services.

The college’s Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry believes all mental health services should be available to people on the basis of need, not age, and is calling on local services to abolish the arbitrary age limit. We know that local change can make a difference and we have gathered some excellent examples. For example, in 2006, following reconfiguration of services in Doncaster, a specialist older people’s mental healthcare home liaison team was established to deliver person-centred care and training to local registered care homes. In the first year, the team received 460 referrals and admissions to hospital reduced by 75%.

And in West Suffolk, the crisis resolution home treatment team for working-age adults was extended in 2006 to include people aged over 65. The number of older people admitted to hospital fell by 31% without any loss of patient or carer satisfaction.

But we also need to remember that people’s needs change as they progress through the life cycle. In moving towards equality for older people, we must guarantee their needs are addressed by mental health services specially designed to meet them. If this doesn’t happen, age discrimination will continue in another guise.

Our position statement clearly states the actions required at a local and national level. These actions include an urgent need to provide access to crisis home treatment, early diagnosis and intervention, care home liaison, general hospital liaison and access to psychological therapies.

The statement’s launch at the House of Commons was attended by 18 Parliamentarians, including shadow minister for mental health Anne Milton MP. It’s notoriously difficult to persuade busy Parliamentarians to find space in their diaries to attend such events, so we were enormously encouraged that so many came along. Just maybe, it’s a sign that ministers are starting to listen - and are prepared to give older people’s mental health services the attention they so desperately need.

Merit awards defended against speculation

By Francesca Robinson - 29th October 2009 1:50 am

A sustained attack on consultants’ distinction awards in Scotland has been dismissed as ill informed by doctors’ leaders.

Doctors’ representatives in England say they have no fears that the government would attempt to abolish the Clinical Excellence Awards, negotiated as part of consultants’ remuneration.

In Scotland, Dr Ian Mckee a Scottish National Party MSP and a former GP, has called for reform of the Scottish system of distinction awards for senior doctors. 

He has questioned the need for the Scottish SNP Government to set aside £30 million for next year’s awards. “If consultants are getting the equivalent of a junior government minister’s salary on top of their own salary this latest round of awards does look bit off,” he said.

He has called for the awards to be frozen in the short term. Other politicians have called for the system to be scrapped.

Stephen Campion, chief executive of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, said: “It is a very real worry that ill informed speculation and comment will be made on anything that could remotely be seen to be a bonus because that is the political and economic climate that we are currently working in. 

“But the important thing to understand is that CEAs are not a bonus. A bonus is based on profit share while the CEAs are paid to recognise the work such as teaching and research that consultants do which is of added value and benefit to the NHS.”

For 2009/10, a level one CEA was worth £2,957 while the highest level 12 (or platinum) award was £75,796.

Paul Flynn, deputy chairman of the BMA’s consultants committee, said: “At the moment both ourselves and the Department of Health through the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards recognise that CEAs reward excellence among consultants.

“The scheme is part and parcel of consultants’ remuneration and if the government wanted to change that we would expect them to open negotiations with us. I don’t believe the system in England is under threat.”

A Scottish government spokesman said that in evidence to the pay review body this year they had recommended a pay freeze for consultants and no uplift to the amount payable as individual distinction awards.

A spokesman for the BMA in Scotland said: “Scotland needs to retain the distinction awards system in order to encourage innovation and to prevent consultants from leaving to work south of the border where they can traditionally earn more.”

Read more on Clinical Excellence Awards.

Coffee: Aussies don’t give a 4X about anything else

By Mike Broad - 1:05 am

You’ve got to love Australians and their no-nonsense approach to life.

I got some first hand experience of this when I lived in Terrigal, New South Wales, for a while and used to play ‘touch footy’ (for ‘footy’ read rugby) with medical staff from the local hospital.

It was a team of mixed gender and age and, while you weren’t judged on your abilities, you were judged on your level of commitment.

One night I excelled myself, outpacing a middle aged nurse (just) for a glorious try in the corner. I swallow dived in celebration. That act of flamboyance was to be my undoing.

When I jumped up I realised that my house keys - which I’d left in my pocket - were firmly and deeply jammed into my thigh. Did I receive any sympathy? No. Was I expected to finish the game despite bleeding profusely and requiring stitches? Yes. It’s what all of them would have done.

There’s a steely determination about many Australians that I admire - there’s a culture of getting the job done regardless of the circumstances and without whingeing about it (like a ‘pom’).

You can also see this attitude in their approach to work hours. Too many episodes of Home & Away might have us believing that Aussies ‘clock off’ early and disappear to the beach but, in reality, Australia is one of the few developed countries without an upper working hours limit.

There’s no namby-pamby, sherry-drinking Working Time Directive for them. Australian employers are obliged to provide a safe system of work but there’s no one-size fits all hours limit.

Maybe that’s where we have gone wrong particularly when the evidence suggests that trainees are more tired working a shift-based 48-hour week than the longer hours of yesteryear.

Queensland Health has recently developed a Fatigue Risk Management System that is being applied across the state. It’s a model that strives to integrate management practices, beliefs and procedures to manage the risks of fatigue.

The document includes lots of talk about developing governance structures, creating a local working group on fatigue, conducting a fatigue ‘scan’, setting up a Defence in Depth framework and an education programme.

It all seems to make sense - if I understood it right - but one bit in particular has stirred up the BMA’s junior doctors committee. With typical Aussie belligerence, the document also suggests that if doctors are feeling really tired then they should consume six cups of strong coffee. Guess what? Evidence suggests it perks you up.

Dr Shree Datta, JDC chair, is outraged. She comments in BMA News that it’s “a reckless suggestion which may have dangerous implications for the care patients receive as well as doctors’ health”.

Safe working patterns and appropriate rota design are what is needed to minimise risk, she says.

Of course they’re important. But, as we fret about ‘safe working patterns’, with one eye on the clock, the standard of our training and continuity of care are deteriorating.

Maybe our hard-nosed Antipodean cousins are on to something: a few more work hours in certain specialties with a few more shots of espresso might just result in more experienced doctors and better care for patients.

South Asian doctors deserve recognition for their contribution

By Mike Broad - 28th October 2009 1:15 pm

Migrant doctors have made a huge contribution to the NHS over the past 60 years and yet it has gone largely unrecognised.

In an attempt to rectify this, researchers at the Open University have carried out 60 interviews with retired and serving overseas-trained doctors from South Asian countries about their experiences of working as geriatricians in the NHS from 1948 to the present day. The interviewees obtained their initial medical qualifications in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Burma and at the time of the interview ranged in age between 40 and 91.

They all followed a longstanding tradition of migrating from South Asia to the UK. Several had lived and worked in India during the colonial period, with one remarking about his teachers that “most had royal college qualifications”. He explained: “I’m one of the Midnight’s Children - I was born in 1946 just before partition. So, the British influence was very much in the family and it was sort of ingrained. And then when you see your teachers they all had their British degrees behind their names…” (born in Bihar, 1946, arrived in UK in 1972).

From its inception, the NHS depended on recruiting staff from overseas. Immigration legislation in the 1960s and 1970s targeted migrants from the Commonwealth countries. Legislation on racial discrimination in employment, enacted in 1976, and growing concerns about staff shortages in the NHS also influenced doctors’ career opportunities.

Overseas doctors can be seen as a mobile army of labour, particularly in the lower rungs of the medical hierarchy and in the less popular specialties, among which was geriatrics.

A crisis of staffing in the 1960s meant that by 1974 over 60% of consultant geriatric posts were filled by overseas trained graduates. This compared with 3% in general medicine and 9% of all NHS consultants.

This workforce development was not always viewed positively. Professors of geriatric medicine wrote to the Royal Commission on the NHS in 1976 saying: “The present pattern of education of medical students, nurses and other health personnel in Britain does not reflect the needs of this high risk group…so that elderly people have grave difficulties in attaining the healthcare appropriate to their needs…This concentration of overseas graduates in what remains a low status specialty is undesirable on many grounds.”

Contrastingly, many of the doctors interviewed expressed great enthusiasm for the NHS. For some it matched their own value systems: “I had to stay here. And I was never going back. I had a lot to go back to, wealth, position, knowing people. I would have risen there then much better, financially much better…I hope they don’t change it… There is no institution like National Health.” (born in Bombay, 1927, arrived in the UK in 1953).

Many also appreciated differences in the way doctors worked in the NHS: “I had a very good relationship with the ward sister…here we saw nurses more or less as equal and they were not subservient and you asked for their opinion about things that they were good at. You didn’t tell them, you asked them. In the Indian scene…doctors were only for doctoring and so a lot of things, even maintaining notes, we had in our hospital, we had a separate person like a clerk who went round with us and wrote down in the notes, medical notes.” (born in Bangalore, 1945, arrived in the UK in 1973).

Geriatrics was a ‘Cinderella’ specialty. In the early days of the NHS, care of older people with chronic conditions was little more than tending and took place in the back wards of large municipal hospitals, ex-Poor Law infirmaries and cottage hospitals.

Patients might go for years without seeing a doctor and were often confined to bed permanently. The founders of the geriatric specialty attempted to change this situation, in part as a more humane approach to medical care and treatment in later life but also in response to a demand to find ways to release hospital beds for use by other patients.

The specialty’s poor image resulted in marginalised groups of doctors such as GPs, women returners and migrants being recruited.

The South Asian doctors’ accounts provide testimony to the prevailing attitudes of the time towards older patients: “Geriatrics came to occupy as a second class doctors doing second class service for second class clients. I would not accept that. When I first started becoming a consultant I started here. I used to get great wad of letters. ‘Will you kindly see this patient and advise’.

“They bloody well didn’t want my advice. They wanted me to remove the body blocking their beds. And I said to myself, I will never become a clinical undertaker. Never. I have learned some medicine and I want to practice it.” (born in Bombay, 1927, arrived in the UK in 1953)

The doctors interviewed found that opportunities for career progression tended to be limited - even today more than twice (42%) as many white as overseas non white (17%) doctors are consultants in the NHS.

Geriatrics did, however, offer a way to progress. Many of those interviewed followed the pioneers in this respect, often taking the advice of senior colleagues as this doctor recalls: “Because my consultant, who was exactly like me…he was a trained cardiologist and then there were openings in geriatrics so he quickly moved into that area and he said if you want to go through the fast track up then this is a less crowded road.” (born in Madras, 1958, arrived in the UK in 1996).

But professional advancement was not always the whole story. Also important was personal achievement for both doctor and patient: “It took me five years but I got him back to work…I’m not joking, I cried that day. I cried that day when that fellow - he was a butcher - I got him back to work.” (born in Kerala, 1941, arrived in the UK in 1968).

The South Asian doctors talked not only of the stigma of working in geriatric medicine but also of personal encounters with discriminatory practices. They tended to focus on three areas where, as outsiders, they experienced discrimination: in getting their first post in the UK; when attempting to get a post as a specialist registrar; and in the allocation of discretionary merit awards and consultant positions.

Some picked out particular instances where interviews were unfairly conducted, promotions denied and work went unrecognised. Opportunities to secure promotion in the more popular specialties were few, even for experienced, well qualified doctors as preference seemed to be automatically given to UK trained doctors.

“Well chances were nil. I mean let us not beat about the bush. In those days if in an interview you found a local graduate you might as well walk off. But you could only get if there were more than one or two, three posts and you were competing amongst yourselves.” (born in Haryana, 1947, arrived in the UK in 1975).

Many found it difficult to secure posts in London and the south east and instead opted to work in more peripheral areas such as the northwest and Wales and in non-teaching hospitals where there was perceived to be less competition from UK graduates.

Those interviewed were nearly all consultants and one way of measuring their success was through the receipt of merit awards. South Asians and geriatricians were far less likely to receive merit awards than white doctors in other specialties.

“I think the main reason, without trying to be critical, is that the geriatricians had a hard, heavy, workload, clinical workload and had little time left to do other extra work, like research, publications and in terms of giving awards these other aspects were given more importance than the guy who was providing sort of a bread and butter service.

“And without trying to be cynical, maybe old schoolboy ties and that sort of thing can play a part. But I better not say anything more than that!” (born in East Bengal 1935, arrived in the UK in 1967).

Developing service provision in hospitals often meant struggling for resources for the care of older people. And South Asian doctors helped develop the idea of age-related admission to a unit which focused exclusively on older patients, with doctors, nurses and medical students trained in old age medicine. Collaborations with GPs, social workers and other professionals were also seen as essential to improving service provision.

While this research examined the challenges of the mid to late twentieth century, many of the issues that the NHS and its doctors face today remain the same.

New immigration rules exclude many non-EU doctors from training in the UK but the introduction of the European Working Time Directive has led to staff shortages, reminiscent of the earlier period. And, of course, providing good care to an ageing population continues to be a pressing issue.  

The research makes a case for the need to recognise the achievements of international medical migrants in the past, and suggests they can help the NHS and its patients in the future.

It was led by Professor Joanna Bornat and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Prof Bornat said: “We wanted to record and highlight the huge contribution these doctors have made in shaping medical provision in the UK, and their experiences of working in the NHS, before these first-hand accounts were lost forever.

Their determination and dedication has meant that the quality of care for our older population has progressed at a truly tremendous rate.”

Find out more about this research.

GPs struggle to make eye contact with patients

Pulse - 10:28 am

GPs are so busy with red tape during a consultation that thousands are unable to spend enough time making eye contact with patients, a Pulse survey reveals

A survey of more than 600 GPs finds almost 40% say they do not feel able to make enough eye contact as GP are deluged with red tape.

Although the survey finds 55% of GPs have increased their appointment times in the past five years-spending an average of 11 minutes per consultation, GPs say they spend around a third of this time on administration and just over half addressing patients’ needs.

They claim appointment times need to increase further - up to 14 minutes on average - but GP leaders are suggesting GPs should now be offering appointments of at least 15 minutes.

The survey also reveals worrying signs the bureaucratic burden on GPs is affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr Robert Baker, a GP in Swanage, Dorset, said: “I could really do with being split in two to manage the prevention and curative aspects of my job both of which I am expected to address - for multiple systems - in 10 minutes.”

Read more at Pulse.

Consultation on direct payments in health

By Mike Broad - 9:05 am

Direct payments for healthcare moved a step closer this week with a new consultation launched by care services minister Phil Hope.

Personal health budgets are being piloted in PCTs to 2012. Direct payments are an important part of these pilots, having been offered in social care since 2005.

Millions of people now receive money to buy their own social care and the Health Bill is set to legalise direct payments in healthcare next month. It is intended that personal health budgets will help to create a more personalised NHS, by giving people more choice and control over how money is spent on their treatment and care. 

The consultation discusses the three ways a personal health budget could work: through a notional budget being held by a commissioner, such as a patient’s doctor or PCT; a budget managed on the individual’s behalf by a third party, like a charity or User Trust; or a cash payment to an individual patient and managed by them (a direct payment).

Trusts are already able to offer the first two options, which do not involve giving money directly to individuals. The consultation seeks views on the rules for making direct payments as well as proposals for setting up and evaluating direct payment pilots.

The proposed regulations show there will be more restrictions in the use of direct payments than in social care.

PCTs would have to carry out a Criminal Records Bureau check on anyone employed by a patient to care for a patient who is not a friend or family member of the patient, or a member of their household, and tell the patient the results. There is no such obligation on councils in relation to people hired by adult direct payment users so long as they possess capacity.

Patients would also have to provide more information to the PCT on how the direct payment is being spent. The consultation says PCTs should set local policies on what direct payments could be spent on, such as a course of physiotherapy or hydrotherapy for people suffering from long-term chronic pain; an air conditioner for someone suffering respiratory conditions, or complementary therapies, such as acupuncture.

A BMA spokesman expressed concern that direct payments further establishes the idea of healthcare as a commodity, reinforcing the concept of the market and undermining the principles of the NHS.

He added: “While we recognise that these proposals are being piloted, the BMA would welcome a range of practical questions being addressed as soon as possible.

“For example, if a patient’s budget runs out, would they be allowed to access it in subsequent years? If a patient spends less than their allocated budget, would they be encouraged to spend the remaining balance or would the money be returned to the NHS pot? How will care be priced? Will prices differ from PCT to PCT and/or between NHS and private providers?”

The consultation will run until 8 January 2010.

Care services minister Phil Hope said: “There are some really inspiring stories already from people whose lives have been transformed by personal budgets - they get more choice and control over their own care.

“By making direct payments available in healthcare I know many more people will feel the benefits. We want to make sure we get this right and I want everyone to have their say to make sure we do.”

Earlier this year, 70 sites from across the country were granted provisional pilot status - 20 will be evaluated in depth. Personal health budgets were originally proposed in Lord Darzi’s Next Stage Review.

Outlawed gagging clauses still used in NHS

By Mike Broad - 9:02 am

Consultants continue to be gagged when in dispute with trusts despite the practice being outlawed from NHS contracts, the BMJ claims.

Long-serving consultant Peter Bousfield was offered early retirement and a termination payment after he raised patient safety concerns by Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust.

Documents have come to light showing that not only was a non-disclosure clause incorporated into the compromise agreement at the behest of the trust, contrary to NHS guidance, but the trust’s solicitors also threatened Mr Bousfield with a court injunction if he tried to bring matters to the attention of local members of parliament.

Commenting on gagging clauses, Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA’s consultants committee said: “Our fundamental responsibility is to provide care of the highest possible quality to our patients and do all we can to guarantee their safety - no matter what obligations we have to any other parties, including our employers.

“To say there are no circumstances in which a concern for patient safety can be raised outside the organisation, or to attempt to enforce silence through a contractual mechanism, is appalling.”

A recent BMA survey, around 1 in 7 hospital doctors in England and Wales who reported concerns said that their trusts had indicated that by speaking up, their employment could be negatively affected.

Gagging clauses have been specifically prohibited in NHS employment contracts since before the Public Interest Disclosure Act was passed in 1998, and this position was reinforced in August 1999 when the Department of Health issued guidance on whistleblowing.

Yet despite this, there is some suggestion that this is not an isolated case. Public Concern at Work said: “We are hearing anecdotally that these compromise agreements are being done with quite blatant clauses in them, whereby people are being paid a specific amount extra not to say anything.”

The BMJ article also highlights issues surrounding doctors who leave trusts ‘under a cloud’ with gagging clauses made in their favour, making it difficult for future employers to find out what went wrong and leaving them free to repeat their behaviour. It says one concerned medical colleague, who tried to report a consultant to the GMC, got into trouble for breaching the gagging clause.

Appointments to fitness to practise adjudicator

By Mike Broad - 8:58 am

The board steering the new adjudicator on doctors’ fitness to practise is taking shape.

Two non-executive directors have been appointed to the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator which, from 2011, will adjudicate on the cases brought before it by the GMC.

It is hoped that the separation of investigation from adjudication through the creation of OHPA will demonstrate that fitness to practise decisions are fair and effective and separate from the profession, regulator and government.

The newly appointed non-executive directors, Andrew Colquhoun and Pamela Charlwood, will work with the chair Walter Merricks to oversee the creation of this new independent body and regulatory system.

Colquhoun is chairman of the investigation committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, while Charlwood is vice chair of the Hampshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Merricks, who becomes chair of OHPA on 1 November, has been the chief financial ombudsman.

Ian Barker, an MDU solicitor, welcomed the progress. “It’s right that the body that prosecutes does not adjudicate as well - it’s a basic principle of fairness,” he said. 

He added that the OHPA is in the interests of doctors because while the public think the GMC goes easy on doctors, in reality, the opposite is true.   

This split in role was recommended by Dame Janet Smith, who presided over the Shipman Inquiry, and the GMC will in future be confined to investigating complaints, gathering evidence, and ‘prosecuting’ cases.

The General Optical Council will follow the GMC in losing its adjudication role to the new office, and all healthcare professions will eventually abide by the same system.

It represents a significant step away from self-regulation, and follows an increase in lay representation within the GMC. Last year, the GMC also controversially changed the burden of proof required in making fitness to practise decisions. The civil standard of proof is now applied, so allegations no longer have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities.

It is hoped that OHPA’s development provides an opportunity to improve case management.

MDU’s Barker believes the length of hearings and their cost could be reduced if the OHPA used legally qualified chairs on fitness to practise panels.

He said: “As it exists, a legal assessor advises the panel. But, gone are the days when you had a panel of 12 doctors needing independent legal advice. If you had a legal chair, they could make their own legal determinations and it would cut down on the considerable amount of time spent dealing with legal aspects.”