GDC Double Standards: Transparency & Social Media Monitoring
- Details
- Published: Thursday, 27 April 2023 07:32
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 2197
There are nine key professional standards that the GDC expects registrants to observe. The second of these is that they must “communicate effectively with patients”.
Despite having a substantial department whose principal task is communications, the GDC themselves seem to have something of a problem with effective communication. Dominic Hooley, a Leeds dentist, has been trying to obtain some simple information from the GDC. Despite repeated Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and involvement of the Information Commissioner, after five years, he has still been denied effective communication from our regulator. At issue is whether, or how, the GDC have been carry out surveillance of registrants social media accounts.
Dr O’Hooley began his enquiry in 2018, concerned about how the GDC might be monitoring dentist’s personal social media. He wanted to know if they did this, and if so what information was collected and how it was used.
In response to an initial FOI request, the GDC revealed that they used a third party monitoring service to analyse instances where the GDC was referred to or engaged with on social media. In August 2022 he asked via a new FOI request, the name of the third party monitoring service, the date that the arrangement had started, its cost, and if this was met from ARF monies.
The GDC missed the statutory 28 day deadline to respond, and then answered only the first two parts of Dr O’ Hooley’s question. As a result, Dr O’ Hooley asked for a review under the Freedom of Information act, seeking a complete answer. His request was declined as by now he had submitted a further FOI which not only repeated the unanswered questions, but asked for an explanation of an apparent contradiction in what the GDC had already said.
The contradiction was quite blatant. In one response the GDC had written that “The GDC does not have a social media monitoring team and therefore no fitness to practise proceedings have been initiated on the basis of information they have obtained.”
Given that the GDC had now admitted that they had utilised the services of GorkanaGroup from 2018 until 2021 for social media monitoring, he asked:
1 - Has information provided by GorkanaGroup to the GDC been used as part of a FtP (Fitness to Practice) investigation for any registered dental professional?
2 - During the time of the contract with GorkanaGroup, was the GDC aware of any instances where they used proxy, fake or otherwise underguise tactics to gain information on registered dental professionals or groups within the sphere of social media. Were any named dental professional’s details given to GorkanaGroup by the GDC for the purposes of gaining information pertaining to their social media activity?
In response, the GDC claimed that for them to confirm information from GorkanaGroup had or had not been used in FtP proceedings, would require a manual check of cases, and they would not do this on cost grounds.
Importantly the GDC went on to state that, “The GDC is not aware of any time when GorkanaGroup used a proxy at any point during the contract, also we do not believe this is a service which is offered by the supplier. No named dental professionals were referred from the GDC to GorkanaGroup for the purpose of gaining information pertaining to the dental professional’s social media activity however this is a service that they do offer.”
Dr O’ Hooley submitted a further FOI asking them to provide a copy of their contract with GorkanaGroup. Given the previous contradictions he explained that he needed to see the wording of the contract to understand the exact nature of the services specified by the GDC and those agreed to by GorkanaGroup.
Regarding the costs involved he also asked for the original tender process for the media monitoring via third party services. To further shed some light on the process, he requested the wording of the GDC tender and the short listed companies and the final selection process with written documentation that had led to the approval of the GorkanaGroup contract. He also asked how information from GorkanaGroup was provided to the GDC, in short by who, to who, and how? If via regular written reports, he asked to see redacted copies of these reports. If reports were not written, he asked how they were provided. He asked if the GDC held a record of all reports provided by GorkanaGroup, and possibly anticipating evasion asked, if not, why not?
In their response the GDC included the following key section, “I would like to apologise for my response to question 2 in our response dated 21 October 2022. This was an oversight on my behalf the response was meant to read: ‘… this is a service that they do not offer.’ This was confirmed with our Communications team. ”
The response went on to say that they did not hold the procurement details, and that quotations form unsuccessful bidders are not held beyond 12 months. They also went on to claim that: “The GDC has never had social media accounts of individuals monitored therefore no reports of social media activity of specific accounts were ever provided. Given the nature of the service and the way it was delivered, this is information the GDC no longer holds.”
Following this contradictory information, In November 2022, Dr O’ Hooley asked for the FOI response to be reviewed. He pointed out that, a simple search of the GorkanaGroup website showed that that they do offer a service where named individuals social media profiles and detailed information regarding these are offered to clients. He added, “I am nonplussed by your response to this part of my FOI where you state that GorkanaGroup do not provide this service after consultation with your Communication team which is contrary to your previous response of 21/10/22.
Can you let me know which response you would like me to take as your formal position on this matter?” He went on to ask once again for details of the contract that the GDC had with Gorkana.
The GDC ignored this request and in December 2022 Dr O’Hooley wrote to them once again, asking them for a response, in the absence of which he would escalate to the Information Comissioner’s Office (ICO)
It was only following the ICO’s involvement that the GDC finally responded in March 2023. They confirmed that they did hold a copy of the contract with Gorkana but would not provide it on the grounds that it was “commercially sensitive.”
Dr O’ Hooley responded requesting an internal review of General Dental Council’s handling of his FOI request. He pointed out that, 1 - The GDC had failed to clarify what their formal position was on whether GorkanaGroup provided an individualised social monitoring service, as contradicted in their previous replies and ignored in the most recent one. 2 - As transparency was paramount as to whether the GDC did actually commission individualised social media reports from GorkanaGroup, it was vital to see the contract. Given that the GDC had said that they will no longer utilise the services of such private investigation companies, there was now no reason why a future commercial prejudice would be a valid reason to decline his request.
In response, the GDC reply provided no new information, but referred back to their previous responses. Dr O’ Hooley in turn has asked for a further internal review attaching a link to Gorkana’s website which demonstrates that they do indeed offer listening to key influencers who may affect the reputation of a client. The Gorkana website makes much of their prowess in “media management” and “media intelligence.”
The summary above attempts to condense many hours work given freely by Dr O’Hooley, as well as many more carried out by the GDC and paid for by registrants. The GDC also have employed external legal specialists at further cost, on occasion, when dealing with FOI’s.
GDPUK readers who are registrants of the GDC will not need reminding that when they are being judged by the GDC in its Fitness to Practice (FtP) process, dishonesty is considered to be virtually irredeemable. The standard of proof required to establish this and in many instances, to end a registrant’s career, is based upon the balance of probabilities.
How would a registrant deflecting, obfuscating and changing their answers, in an FtP hearing, in the way that the GDC have over this issue, be viewed?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/follow_up_regarding_gorkanagroup
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report