THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL DEFENCE UNION OF SCOTLAND
Dr C George M Fernie
gfernie@mddus.com
Can ethical conduct, quality assurance and regulation be
legitimate or effective when different standards are applied by
different entities and in different circumstances of mortality?
ROUTES OF ACCOUNTABILITY







Complaints
Ombudsman
GMC
Negligence Claims
CI and FAI
Criminal
NPIA
National Clinical Assessment Service
Special health authority part of the NHS’s
work on quality. Provides a support service
when there are concerns over the
performance of a doctor or dentist.
MDDUS GP claims intimated 1996 - 2007
350
300
250
200
150
100
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MDDUS FAI/CI FILES 1990-2007
120
100
80
60
40
20
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
0
Year of intimation
MDDUS GMC FILES 1990-2007
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Year of intimation
SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
‘Infamous conduct in a professional respect means
no more than serious misconduct judged according
to the rules, written or unwritten, governing the
profession. ’
Lord Justice Scrutton
Fitness to Practise Rules 2004



Standard letter
Compliance with Medical Act 1983 (as amended)
Impairment of fitness to practise –
a. Misconduct
b. Deficient performance
c. A criminal conviction or caution in the British Isles (or
elsewhere for an offence which would be a criminal offence if
committed in England or Wales)
d. Adverse physical or mental health
e. A determination by a regulatory body either in the British
Isles or overseas
Fitness to Practise Rules 2004









Rule 5 (Conviction) – direct to FTP Hearing
Rule 7 Letter – Annex A
Expert opinion
Health Assessment
Performance Assessment
Case Examiners
Adjudication
Warnings
IOP
Implementing the
Civil Standard of
Proof
The standard of proof
A new provision in our Fitness to Practise rules
introducing the civil standard of proof at Fitness to
Practise panel hearings, when panellists are
making decisions on disputed facts, took effect on
31 May 2008
REGISTER
OF
FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS
DISCIPLINARY RULES
ISSUE 2 – JULY 2007
© British Crown Copyright 2007
Those processes are set out in this document, which covers three main
areas:
a. The Disciplinary Committee Rules (DS), which set out the
procedure for handling complaints up to the stage at which a case
is referred to a Summary Hearing Panel (DS) or a Disciplinary
Tribunal (DS);
b. The Summary Hearing Rules (DS), which prescribe the procedure
for hearing a case where the suspension or removal of a
pathologist's registration is not contemplated; and
c. The Disciplinary Tribunal Rules (DS), which prescribe the
procedure for handling the most serious cases, with a range of
sanctions which could include the removal of a pathologist's name
from the Register (DS).
The purpose of the disciplinary procedures (DS) is to ensure that the
Register (DS) of forensic pathologists continues to identify only those
who are fit to practise (DS). They provide a mechanism for remedial as
well as punitive action, and enable the Pathology Council (DS) to
demonstrate to the public that the standards published in the Code of
Practice (DS) and Code of Conduct (DS) as to professional performance
and behaviour are being maintained.
The purpose of the disciplinary procedures (DS) is to ensure that the
Register (DS) of forensic pathologists continues to identify only those
who are fit to practise (DS). They provide a mechanism for remedial as
well as punitive action, and enable the Pathology Council (DS) to
demonstrate to the public that the standards published in the Code of
Practice (DS) and Code of Conduct (DS) as to professional performance
and behaviour are being maintained.
Can ethical conduct, quality assurance and regulation be
legitimate or effective when different standards are applied by
different entities and in different circumstances of mortality?