Where there is smoke, there's fire

Revalidation.
The Data to Set Your Career on Fire

Following on from my piece on revalidation and databases, I wanted to provide extracts from documentation within the various authorities. This establishes a slipshod approach where the National Health Service has unilaterally decided to collect Fitness to Practise data without any consultation with the medical profession itself. This was a unilateral decision made following the Shipman Inquiry and other inquiries that followed.

First, I present, Mr Finlay Scott's statement to the Shipman Inquiry where he clarified the impact of running roughshod across a doctors livelihood. The data though is retained.

In Paragraph 73 of his statement to the Inquiry, Mr Scott said [ Statement available on the Shipman Inquiry website]

“The disclosure by the GMC to third parties of information about doctors whose fitness to practise is being investigated was a source of some difficulty until 2000, when matters were put on a statutory footing at the GMC’s request. On the one hand, the GMC recognised that its duty to protect patients required, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information about a GMC investigation to those responsible locally for the doctor. On the other hand, the GMC was very aware of the damage that could be caused to a doctor’s reputation, career and livelihood through disclosure of information about allegations that had not been substantiated and might in due course prove to be unfounded. That this was an uncertain and complex area of law increased the difficulties we faced in making judgments about disclosure in individual cases."

From the General Medical Council by email to me [ please note that Jackie Smith of the GMC denied the existence of such a database in her statement in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal but I decided to show her a email she had written to me some time ago admitting the database issue herself].

“You asked us about our retention of your personal data. The GMC is required to keep records in order to perform its regulatory duties. We currently retain fitness to practise records, details of all complaints and enquiries received about doctors, on a permanent basis. This provides us with a longitudinal view of a doctor's involvement with the GMC. Maintaining Fitness to Practise records on a long-term basis ensures that we have a detailed picture of a doctor’s registration history, which is essential to appropriately protect the public.” Ms Smith went on to say, “Principle five of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) requires data controllers to keep personal data for as long as necessary to perform their specified purposes. We hold records for as long as necessary to perform our statutory functions, balancing the privacy requirements of individual doctors and the public protection needs of the wider community. We are therefore unable to cease processing your personal data in this instance.”

Finally, paragraph 33 of the Kerr / Haslam Inquiry found:

“Regulatory bodies (with responsibility for the regulation and discipline of psychiatrists and other mental healthcare professionals) and the Department of Health should be under a clear duty, in the public interest, to share information about disciplinary investigations or other related proceedings. This duty should extend to information known to the regulatory bodies and the Department of Health relating to disciplinary investigations and related proceedings, even if conducted outside the United Kingdom. Consideration should be given to the collection and retention of all information relevant to patient safety, including unsubstantiated complaints, unproven allegations and informal concerns.” The Department of Health agreed with this proposal"

Page 63 of Safeguarding Patients. The Government’s Response to the recommendations of the Shipman Inquiry’s Fifth Report and to the Recommendations of the Ayling,Neale and Kerr/Haslam Inquiries February 2007]

So, this shows the existence of a national database, the sharing of information between organisations and the crippling civil rights breaches for doctors. A doctor cannot challenge anything that is done under the Medical Act 1983. I believe the prognosis is poor as the changes have already been made by the powers that be. Supreme control is indeed here by way of information gathering and databases. In a fair world, this would not be a problem but the NHS is anything but fair.