Keeping an eye on the GDC by Victoria Holden.

My next concern relates to conflicts of interests and, again, I have raised these with the GDC and I remain concerned hence I am ‘going public’. 

Having been taken to task myself by Counsel once over an issue of a conflict of interest during a Fitness to Practise hearing, I fully appreciate that expert witnesses and FtP panel members must be, or at least be seen to be, ‘whiter than white’.  That is, of course, subject to the phrase not being in anyway offensive to any sectors of society as it certainly isn’t intended to be, or otherwise inappropriately bringing the profession into disrepute, in which case I mean ‘holier than thou’.  Or do I? Truthfully I’m not sure what I can and can’t say these days.

The GDC also seem to grasp the impact that conflict of interests may have on the disciplinary processes, as they have a document titled ‘Managing Interests Policy for Council members and Associates’. In this document it says:

So it all sounds like, on paper at least, the GDC takes the issue of conflicts of interests very seriously indeed.   And it is with reference to conflicts of interests and the Pate case that I am writing this blog.

There has already been plenty written on the GDC v Pate case elsewhere.  On Dentistry online their 4 most popular links refer to the proverbial ‘FtP case of the year’. 

At the time I started writing Mr Hill was winning with over 9,000 views.  Coming up fast at the back with a late article on the subject was Mr Anis with a tidy 4000 views of his re-iteration of the points Mr Hill makes, but it feels with more insistent tone that negative Islamic comment equates to hate speech.   Mr Rees and Mr Watson also give opinions on the subject and there are some excellent arguments made in all these pieces, including within the comments.

Much is made of the fact that the Met Police said that no crime had been committed by Mr Pate and that this means nothing in terms of FtP.  Actually, I would have to concur.  But the problem is that the Chief Constable of the Met did not simply say ‘no crime committed here, everyone move on’.  What he appears to have said as I read it, is that what was said wasn’t that bad.  The police letter, which is not mentioned in the determination, but I shall add it here for transparency, says:

Interesting. Controversial views, and at times unpleasant to the majority, but certainly not criminal, offensive or even religiously offensive says the Chief Constable of the Met.  And, there are well-known individuals saying the same things.  Not an entirely helpful letter for the GDC’s case, which presumably explains why it is not referred to the determination.  The transcript does refer to the letter, but these are not publically available and only available to the parties directly involved in the proceedings.  Well, correction; they are available to the public, at a cost of approximately £250 per hearing day as I found out recently from an FOI. 

Anyway, I am side-tracking.  Back to the conflicts issue.  Further to the complaint, and the Met letter, the hearing progressed with an unrepresented Mr Pate, as non-clinical issues fell outside of his defence indemnifiers remit as it has been reported. Having read the transcript, the need for representation at these hearings is clear.  Many of the arguments and points Mr Pate put forwards would have been better made, and no doubt have carried more weight if made by Counsel. ‘Stories of the Law’ by the Secret Barrister who explains how self-representing people frustrate the hell out of everyone else in any kind of legal or quasi-legal hearing.  So the GDC got a great opportunity to make the point that registrants should tone it down, or better still, completely shut up on social media by securing a four-month suspension of Mr Pate. 

Chair of the FtP panel, Mr Adair Richards was soon after noted to have listed the General Dental Council as a previous client when tweeting about his new training and consultancy company website earlier in the year:

Indeed, the GDC are right in their warnings that social media can be hazardous. 

Unfortunately, the level of trust in our regulator appears to be so low that registrants are now at the point of scrutinising the background and motives of associated individuals. Here, it appears that we have an FtP panel member who has been paid by the GDC to provide training and consultancy to the GDC.  A Freedom of Information request was submitted to request Mr Richards declaration of conflicts and other information about his previous business relationship with the GDC, of which nothing was apparently declared.

I was told that Mr Richards ‘made an error’ on his website, and as if by magic, one week later the website had been altered to remove the GDC from the previous list of clients.  I’ll be honest, and say I am not sure that I buy this is an ‘error’.  FtP panel members go through rigorous testing of their critical thinking skills.  They are not unintelligent people.  To make an error implies that Mr Richards either misunderstood that his role on the FtP panel was somehow an extension of his consultancy services, or perhaps that he was completely unaware that the website copywriter had listed the GDC as a client.  The other possibility that crosses my mind is that it could have been a ‘deliberate error’, made with the intention to mislead potential future clients into thinking the company had trained or consulted with the GDC.  Either way, it does not look good.   The Managing Interests Policy document tells me that these are the possible interests, of which I pick at the very least a ‘perception of a conflict’:

As a result of this error/lie on the website, which seems to have been swept under a rug in Wimpole Street, I also perceive that Mr Richards could be in breach of the Nolan Principles listed in appendix 2:

I think it is great that Mr Hill came online to explain why the GDC took the Pate case so seriously, and highlighting why protecting public confidence in the profession is so important.

However, I can’t help thinking that the large number of dissenting registrants would be more respectful of the Pate hearing outcome were it not for the issues that I have exposed here and in my previous blogs.  It is not just the registrants that are responsible for public confidence: the GDC also have a major role to play.  If registrants do not have confidence in the regulator and those associated with them to act professionally and properly this can only lead to damaged public confidence at the end of the day. 

Next time, I will be looking at Prejudicial Interests, and delving a bit further into the Pate case.

In the meantime, if you have been affected by any of the issues raised in my blogs, do not worry.  You could waste 15 minutes of your life that you will never get back by sharing feedback about our regulator with the Professional Standards Authority here.

 Image credit - Best Picko ; under CC licence - modified.

For Part One of this blog - click here.

Image by rakka_pl

Dear Mr Brack,

I have previously been a harsh critic of the GDC, especially in the days of the previous registrar. Indeed, I wrote many blogs that were well received by the profession. With the departure of the previous registrar, there was an opportunity for the GDC to begin to repair the damage it had done to the profession by the draconian and inefficient manner in which it had been led.

There appeared to be a time when the new team seemed to be developing a far more appropriate attitude to regulation, and I therefore felt it appropriate to perhaps watch the situation without commenting further. It was disappointing when Jonathan Green left, although I did feel that with you at the head of the Organisation (for indeed it is NOT a business but a QUANGO I think you will find) then there would be a continuation of the bridge building that was sorely needed.

However, whilst there seem to have been some minor improvements, fundamentally there seems to be no real change in the way the GDC wishes to be perceived by the profession and how it executes its statutory duty. Under the aegis of protecting the public, it is actually doing more to negatively affect the public it serves to protect by continuing to prosecute its role in a draconian and often arrogant manner. There is still huge a lack of insight into the damage it is doing to the morale and the well being of its registrants; damage that can be squarely blamed on the actions of the GDC itself.

Because when a profession is so scared of its very shadow that it can no longer function as it is supposed to, then the ONLY thing that will happen is harm to the public. That these professionals are so scared of virtually every treatment they do, every comment they make (including ones like this), and every action they take is a sad indictment of the way that the GDC is systematically destroying the very profession it regulates.

By retaining the ARF at the same level again, with yet another different reason than before, is symptomatic of the disdain and the contempt with which the profession perceive the GDC have for them. The profession are happy to be regulated, but by a fair, just, and right touch regulator. The continued heavy touch that the GDC continues to use cannot continue if the profession is to survive to be allowed to serve its patients as there will come a tipping point where we will no longer be willing to accept the duress of just turning up to work. If we placed a colleague under this type of stress in our workplace then WE would rightly fear being reported to our regulator.

We are human beings who set ourselves out to care for other human beings. There is no higher privilege than to care for another. However, we make mistakes, we are fallible. You are the same as us, a fellow of the Human race.

We rarely do things wrong deliberately, but we shouldn’t live in fear that the next thing we do both privately or in our jobs could end our careers and destroy our lives.

Please think of the damage that is being done to our profession by this apparent continued lack of insight displayed by the GDC.

Kind Regards,

Simon Thackeray

Image credit - Rakka_pl under CC licence - not modified.

Lookout: Image by Dave Bleasdale

The GDC have recently being taking a stance over professional conduct and particularly in regard to social media.   The Standards say that we must not publically criticise colleagues unless this is done as part of raising a concern.  I should like to make it clear at the outset of this blog that what follows is part of me raising concerns.  Concerns that I feel are not being taken seriously enough, and some not even acknowledged as being concerning at all.   This blog is in 2-parts.  Part 1 will look at ‘bringing the profession into disrepute’ in the context of social media.  It is perhaps timely in view of Mr Hill’s recent effort of justification over the need to suspend retired dentist Mr Pate under the pretext of ‘protecting the public’.   Part 2 will look at my concerns over conflicts of interests.  Both will, as usual, look at this in terms of recent events and cases. 

So my part 1 concern relates to a fellow dentist who is a Clinical Advisor providing early advice reports to the GDC and the material posted on the public stream of their Facebook page.  Our regulator tells us that we must not post material on public media that may undermine public confidence or bring the profession into disrepute.   On this public-facing social media page, there is a joke about a sexual act, several slang references to parts of male anatomy and masturbation, a profile picture that is potentially racially-offensive (depending on the generation of the particular panel that might be selected by the GDC), but the finest one has to be the picture which blames patients for their gum disease and tooth decay because they are “*insertslangformasturbators*’’.  Yet this Clinical Advisor, wrote in an early advice report for the GDC that a dentist who communicated with a patient using Facebook Messenger, was unprofessional for doing so. This would be funny apart for the stress that the registrant was put under as a result of it being included in their initial allegations which contributed to the case being forwarded for a full hearing. There will be more of this to come in another blog.   

I emailed the current Director of Fitness to Practise to ask him what he thought about the content on this Clinical Advisor’s Facebook profile page, and whether he felt it was appropriate for someone affiliated with the GDC.   The GDC ought to know how their Clinical Advisor was behaving whilst giving potentially life-changing advice about other registrants’ professional conduct.  Perhaps my tip-off might assist them in getting their own house in order after a run of bad hearing outcomes for them and at a time when the mood of the profession is resembling that at the time of the ARF debacle.  At the time I had started to draft this blog I had not received any reply, and suspected that the GDC’s email filters might have kicked my email with its supporting attachments of profanities straight into their Spam Folder. I have now received my reply, so I will come back to that later.

On this particular issue of ‘unprofessional’ social media comments, 2 registrants recently received letters from the GDC reminding them of their need to uphold standards when using social media.  They had both used an inappropriate word, albeit on a single occasion, on a Facebook thread and a helpful colleague had very kindly pointed this out to the GDC without raising their concerns with the group moderators or the registrants themselves.  The digital evidence suggests that the anonymous informant was another registrant. In terms of the naughty word used, it was quoted ‘verbatim and in italics’ in the GDC letter.   If the GDC think that word is inappropriate they ought not visit the Dr Rant page and see their ‘affectionate’ nicknames for Jeremy Hunt which are used on an almost daily basis.  The GMC don’t seem to concerned however, but perhaps doctors do not refer each other to their regulator over spats and spite instigated on social media platforms.

Anyway, I felt pretty strongly that this particular display of conduct on social media referred to above really should not go unquestioned, all things being considered.  

The Standards apply to all and this Clinical Advisor who is a fellow dentist, is held to the same standards as us all.  No-one should believe that they sit above us mere-registrants, somehow ‘protected’ by a relationship with the GDC.  A colleague has a four-month suspension for alleged religiously-offensive statements made visible only to other dental registrants, yet I found his comments less offensive that this advisor’s silly, misogynistic and sexist posts. Also, someone with the infantile mentality that is publically displayed arguably unfit to assess whether any other registrants’ behaviour is professional, surely.

Whilst waiting for my email to be replied, rather hilariously, another registrant got a letter from the GDC courtesy of another anonymous informant reminding them of their professional obligations, and advising them to take action so they too could be better behaved in the future.  However, the letter gave no information on what was posted that caused offense or deserved some kind of GDC-referral retaliation.  An SAR sent the GDC may well clear that one up in time. 

Taking screenshots from Facebook and using them to make complaints to the GDC is a rather petty way to retaliate against another dental registrant in my opinion.  Those doing it really need to take a long hard look at themselves, especially if they are in the subset of registrants whinging about our high ARF.

As it happens, the GDC Annual Accounts and Report show that by 2018, 9-10% of incoming GDC complaints (as per my little infographic below) currently arise from other registrants.  This is a record year.  Well done registrants!!  Keep this rate of progress up and in a few years we might actually beat the patients. 

So actually, never mind the GDC: we also need to get our own house in order here.  Please can we all stop being so childish? If you don’t like what’s on Facebook, get off social media, leave the groups that aren’t to your taste or contain people you don’t like, block people who wind you up, or if what’s being said is about you is that bad, spend your own money on legal proceedings rather than wasting all our money artificially inflating the ARF telling tales by the use of screenshots.  Still, it’s nice to see that the GDC has healthy reserves of £20 million against a back drop of a decreasing number of incoming complaints.  Maybe this is in preparation for the day we achieve a level of 100% of complaints arising from all the back-stabbing and bickering going on between ourselves. 

This is the problem with the ‘duty to report concerns’:

LEGITIMATE CONCERNS REPORTED TO THE GDC OFTEN END UP IN ONE OR MORE REFERRALS IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

This is the sheer reality of the dire situation that faces us.  The minute you act on a professional duty to raise concerns with the regulator, you are at risk that ‘concerns’ will be raised about you, and there will be GDC referrals all round.

But back to my email:  I did get a reply regarding my Clinical Advisor issue.  I was advised that I should use the online form to report the matter to the Initial Assessment Team.  

It looks as though we are not the only group happy to throw dentists under the bus, which is always nice to know. 

 

Image credit - Dave Bleasdale under CC licence -  modified.