MDU condemns DoH proposals as "gossips' charter"
The MDU, the UK’s leading medical defence organisation, today highlighted grave concerns about Department of Health (DoH) proposals which could see unsubstantiated conduct or performance allegations about doctors shared with other organisations without the doctor concerned being made aware of them or having the opportunity to challenge them.
Media contact: Press Office on 020 7202 1535 or 020 7202 1504
Publication date: 6 July 2010
In its response1 to a consultation on draft regulations from the DoH2 the MDU says it does not believe the regulations are the most effective way to enhance patient protection and could be open to legal challenge.
Dr Hugh Stewart, the MDU's Head of Case Decisions explains:
"These regulations are considerably flawed and represent little more than a gossips' charter. We have never been persuaded that passing on so-called soft information about doctors in the way proposed would add anything to the existing measures in place to protect patient safety.
"The MDU was so concerned that as soon as we saw the proposed regulations, we instructed leading counsel on behalf of MDU members. Counsel's advice is that the regulations as drafted provide potential for legal challenge under civil and administrative law and that they may infringe doctors' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The primary legislation makes it clear that the regulations must avoid unfair prejudice, yet there is no mention of that in the draft regulations themselves nor in the procedures they set out. They do not set out the steps that should be followed in order to ensure allegations are properly investigated, without bias and acting on a presumption of innocence that should be everyone's right. We have made the point consistently that we believe this policy could considerably undermine the confidence of and in doctors and healthcare workers for no good reason and the draft regulations only serve to reinforce our concerns.
"These regulations give relevant officers the power to pass on potentially damaging information about a doctor to other organisations and there is no appeals process if, for example, the doctor in question thinks there is a conflict of interest or unfair bias or just that the information is wrong.
"There are already effective mechanisms in place to provide information about doctors' performance - the GMC register provides immediate access to information about a doctor's fitness to practise history, and the alert letters system provides for exchange of information within the NHS. These draft regulations are unnecessary and will lead to the setting up of yet another procedure with far greater additional expense for the NHS, including substantial administrative and legal costs, than is envisaged.
"We hope that reason prevails and the DoH will think again about this initiative. If the DoH intends to pursue the regulations, they must be redrafted substantially and at very least comply more closely with the need to avoid unfair prejudice against doctors which is clearly set out in the primary legislation."
Further information
- The MDU's full response to the Consultation
- The Health Care Workers (Duty of Co-operation) Regulations 2010, DoH, 5 March 2010.
RSS