SUSHRUTA
Journal of Health Policy & Opinions
Insights from the GMC’s ‘Fair to Refer’ Report
Parag Singhal,nehapsinghal@yahoo.com
Cite as: Pandya B, Singhal P. Insights from GMC's fair to refer report. Sushruta 2019 Nov vol
The recent report commissioned by the GMC -‘Fair to Refer’ highlighted several issues. The
report sighted inadequate induction and support from employers could be behind the high
number of referrals of black, Asian and minority ethnic doctors to GMC investigations. ‘Fair
to Refer’ hopes to stop doctors getting caught up in unnecessary probes in the first place and
focus on employers, rather than regulators or inspectors. While the report is generally
welcomed by many organisations, one might think that this realisation is not new. The real
problem may indeed be at Board level where Non-executive members often fail to take their
corporate responsibilities seriously and hold the executive to account. In the absence of an
effective mechanism for meaningful engagement with clinicians and front-line professionals,
the blame culture and the unsupportive mindset may remain unchanged.
The NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) published a report in July 2019, ‘ fair
experience for all: Closing the ethnicity gap in rates of disciplinary action across the NHS
workforce. It concluded that in the management of people-related issues and conduct of
workplace relationships, there needs to be greater consistency in demonstrating an inclusive,
compassionate and person-centred approach, underpinned by a concern to safeguard
people’s health and wellbeing, whatever the circumstances. It has flagged up the need for
demonstrable leadership, accountability and support interventions to continuously improve
on race equality. It is a credit to the WRES team that they have provided some valuable
suggestions that may help deliver the twin priorities of reducing (a) the ethnicity gap in entry
into the formal disciplinary processes, and (b) the overall levels of punitive action taken on all
staff.
These report acknowledges the prevailing environment where employers are known to be
more likely to refer doctors who obtained their primary medical qualification outside the UK
and those who are from a black and minority ethnic background to the regulator, than they
are to refer UK qualified or white peers. The situation is not much different amongst other
healthcare staff and in many non-health related industries. Unfortunately in amongst
healthcare workers the consequences are more severe, complaints from employers are more
likely to result in formal investigations and sanctions. While the individual caught up in the
episode is left in an environment of fear and persecution, often without any support. It is not
fair for healthcare staff who are often working in sub-optimal conditions, infrastructural
deficiencies or staffing shortages to face consequences of actions which are often dependent
BAPIO
Pandya_fairtorefer_v1
vol 12(1) 1
SUSHRUTA
Journal of Health Policy & Opinions
on circumstances rather than individual failing or malpractice. The report highlights the
common fate of a BAME staff is that the matter escalates much faster to a formal internal
process and thereafter, an inevitable ‘referral to GMC’.
The recent highly publicised case of ‘Hadiza Bawa-Garba’ highlighted many aspects of poor
induction, lack of supervision, unsafe staffing and systemic failures yet the nurse and junior
doctor were scape-goated by the system. To be fair, this was a turning moment in the history
of medical training, one that united all medical and nursing professionals; the subsequent
review and recommendations has acted as a catalyst to change the very fabric of
organisational responsibility and accountability.
The NHS Trust Boards have been shown in its functions to lack credible processes that
provides for corporate and managerial accountability and implementation of good practices
in most investigations. The cost to an individual are often too high and the loss in time and
service are too precious to squander away.
The NHS faces a recognisable void, in the confidence staff often place in the management.
The environment which often sustains a culture of suspicion, blame and fear has made it a
poor employer, allowing unnecessary drain on what are limited resources that could be put
to for improving patient care. There are some who suggest the NHS Trust Board to be made
an elected body with Council of Workers to vote on the nominees. This may require a major
shift of political will but also involve the legal framework for amending the public appointment
system that is currently prevailing. Meanwhile, some have advocated a different approach by
suggesting that the NHS Trust Boards established an ‘independent committee’ to be a Conflict
Resolution forum with specific remit to review Pre-investigation and Pre-referral to GMC
recommendations of the Managers against any employee.
The latter option may be potentially viable facilitating mechanism for setting an investigation
standard. Further, possibly may open a legitimate route for the workforce to raise issues
relating to systemic challenges in nature involving patient care and safety. It can lead
improvement in relationships and develop a meaningful consultation processes to help
identify ‘heat map’ of conflicts! Often such bodies can facilitate staff from all walks of life, in
feeling valued, sharing ideas and be part of local solutions.
The perception that staff have recourse to someone independent who may be holding senior
management to account such as a Freedom to speak up Guardian, would go a long way in re-
building trust in the system. It may be a useful exercise in confidence building and reduce the
need to ‘whistle blow’ as a last-ditch act. For the NHS Trusts an independent ‘watch dog’ could
provide an insight in to any potential hot-spots where clinical practices and safety may be
compromised.
BAPIO
Pandya_fairtorefer_v1
vol 12(1) 2
SUSHRUTA
Journal of Health Policy & Opinions
Fair to refer: Key Findings & Recommendations 1
• Doctors in diverse groups do not always receive effective, honest or timely feedback
because some managers avoid difficult conversations, particularly where that
manager is from a different ethnic group to the doctor. This means that concerns may
not be addressed early and can therefore develop.
• Some doctors are provided with inadequate induction and/or ongoing support in
transitioning to new social, cultural and professional environments.
• Doctors working in isolated or segregated roles or locations lack exposure to learning
experiences, senior mentors, support and resources.
• Some leadership teams are remote and inaccessible, not seeking the views of less
senior staff and not welcoming challenge and this can allow divisive cultures to
develop.
• Some organisational cultures respond to things going wrong by trying to identify who
to blame rather than focusing on learning. This creates particular risks for doctors who
are ‘outsiders’.
• In groups and out groups exist in medicine including relating to qualifications
(including by country and within the UK by medical school) and ethnicity (including
within BME populations). Members of in groups can receive favourable treatment and
those in out groups are at risk of bias and stereotyping.
Recommendations
1. Providing comprehensive support for doctors new to the UK or the NHS or whose role is
likely to isolate them (including SAS doctors and locums)
2. Ensuring engaged and positive leadership more consistently across the NHS
3. Creating working environments that focus on learning and accountability rather than blame
4. Developing a programme of work to deliver, measure and evaluate the delivery of these
recommendations.
Reference
BAPIO
Pandya_fairtorefer_v1
vol 12(1) 3
