Charlotte Humphrey

Objectives To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Medical practice in the United Kingdom. Participants 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors. Main outcome measures Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations. Results Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU. Conclusions Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.

Tionnaire was e-mailed to members of the International Physicians Assessment Coalition and/or the Coalition for Physician Enhancement—organizations that were thought to provide this type of assessment (n = 20). Questions covered the aims, organization, methods, and outcomes of assessment programs and associated remediation. Results: Responses came from 15 regulatory bodies, universities, not-for-profits, and health service organizations in 5 countries. The assessment programs and remediation activities identified were small in scale. Their focus ranged from a narrow concern with identifying and repairing specific knowledge and skills deficits to a wider interest in the biopsychosocial functioning of the physician as a whole. Both “diagnosis” and “treatment” of problems focused on the individual physician. Less attention was given to broader systems or contextual factors that might impact performance. Although progress through remediation was carefully monitored, none of the programs undertook regular systematic follow-up to ascertain the success of their interventions in the longer term. Discussion: This field of activity is characterized by the use of sophisticated methods for measuring performance/competence, but provision of remediation is more patchy and variable. The small scale of these programs raises questions about the relationship between scale of provision and potential need for remediation. Gaps in information about impact and outcomes mean that the overall impact and value of this type of assessment and remediation is hard to determine. Email: charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell Building, 57 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8HA, United Kingdom Copyright © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company...