Male doctors from lower income groups, who have experienced academic difficulties at medical school, are more likely to find themselves in front of the GMC for professional misconduct, a study reveals.
The research compared the applications and medical school progress of 59 GMC misconduct cases with 236 individuals who had not been referred to the GMC.
The majority of individuals (69%) had completed their medical courses between 1968 and 1987.
The results show that GMC misconduct cases were more likely to be male and from lower social class groups and they were more likely to have failed exams, repeated parts of their courses or had a lower overall performance than their peers. The misconduct cases were also less likely to have achieved consultant status or to be on the GP register.
The authors, Janet Yates and David James from the University of Nottingham Medical School, said that the lower social class background is “a sensitive finding” and one that they cannot explain. However, they are not suggesting “that such students should be viewed differently to any others because we have demonstrated only a relative risk, and the absolute risk for an individual from any background is small”.
Poorly performing students should receive additional support and mentoring and that more detailed research in this area needs to be carried out, they concluded in the bmj.com.
In an accompanying editorial, Alison Reid from the New South Wales Medical Board, in Australia, said the research is important.
She said: “Attempts to identify medical students who are at risk of subsequent professional misconduct should be encouraged because this offers the opportunity for support and remediation if possible, or if not, redirection of the student into a more suitable area of study. This is not just a matter of public protection; students deserve support and assistance and must have realistic career expectations.”
Read the research at bmj.com.
This is a fascinating piece of research - even if the findings are politically incorrect!
It begs a lot of questions. In all walks of life, if a ‘minority group’ enter a ’strange’ environment, they will feel uneasy, will have difficulty relating to others and ‘fitting in’.; but, as the editorial suggests, if they can be indentified early maybe they can be helped. What sort of ’supervision’ do they get (or did the “locum surgeon” - no grade mentioned - who erroneously removed a testicle, described in the previous article)? Do medical students get any ‘education’ in medical ethics, moral dilemmas, or what is expected of ‘a professional person’ by the GMC? And what is the GMC’s (and the profession’s) attitude to those who express concern about a doctor’s behaviour (the ‘whistle-blowers)?
Two quotes come to mind: “There, but for the grace of God, go I” and “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”!