Dr Gainsborough works at the same trust as Dr Louth. He joined the trust two years ago, and works in the troubled microbiology clinic.
Dr Gainsborough has not yet been issued notice by the GMC stating the date by when a recommendation about his revalidation is due. However, most of his supporting information for this revalidation cycle is missing from the appraisal system and he has not attended his most recent annual appraisal which was supposed to happen four months ago.
There has been some disagreement between Dr Gainsborough and his appraiser about his overdue appraisal date; the appraiser claims that Dr Gainsborough did not turn up to the appraisal meeting as arranged, but Dr Gainsborough maintains that the meeting was cancelled weeks in advance.
You are considering submitting a notification of non-engagement about Dr Gainsborough.
back to menu
In this scenario we did not give much detail about Dr Gainsborough’s situation. The RO judgement in this case is premature, even though plausible at first. An RO in this situation should not simply take the view that Dr Gainsborough cannot be recommended for revalidation, because there is insufficient information to make that judgement.
There is more to Dr Gainsborough’s story that an RO could expect to unearth by investigating the reasons for non-engagement. Because the clinic has suffered from disruptions to staffing and facilities, there have been difficulties with appraisal systems at the site. Dr Gainsborough had five of the six types of supporting information ready in his appraisal portfolio, but lost access to some of these due to technical problems.
Further IT outages have affected the appraisal booking system, which is why his latest appraisal is four months overdue – the original appointment was cancelled by accident and Dr Gainsborough, who had no way of telling that the appraiser had not also been properly notified of the cancellation, has had trouble getting a new date logged onto the system.
These reasons sit behind his apparent non-engagement. By investigating this case, the RO should be assured that Dr Gainsborough is, in fact, willing to engage, and that therefore a notification of non-engagement is not suitable. Instead, it is clear that Dr Gainsborough will have trouble meeting his requirements.
Part of the RO’s consideration will relate to whether Dr Gainsborough took steps to remedy the situation. Every doctor is under a professional obligation to participate actively in appraisal.
Dr Gainsborough may have demonstrated this by raising concerns about lost access to his supporting information when it became apparent, or by seeking to identify alternative sources of information that could serve as a basis for his appraisal discussions in the absence of his original data.
The RO has a role in improving governance and appraisal systems, so the problems that Dr Gainsborough’s case brings to light are dealt with – or, if separate from the RO’s own organisation, should be notified to relevant managers immediately so that improvements can be made to allow doctors working there to be appraised and revalidate successfully.
Neither Dr Gainsborough nor the RO should wait until a recommendation is due before taking such steps. In any case, the RO has a duty to do everything possible to encourage and assist Dr Gainsborough to engage with local systems and processes before local action begins or a notification of non-engagement is considered.
back to menu