Dr Kendal has been a consultant psychiatrist at a mental health trust for 20 years. He is nine years away from retirement.
He is known to be a ‘difficult’ doctor in the eyes of management. He is unwilling to engage with new developments, CPD or training unless absolutely necessary.
He has shouted at nursing colleagues and is considered antagonistic and not a team player by any means. He is sloppy with his organisational paperwork and does the bare minimum necessary for his annual appraisal. He has attended all his appraisals, although two were postponed at the last minute, and collected all his supporting information.
His last colleague feedback activity showed a perception among colleagues that he is lazy and uncooperative, but he does not care because he receives good patient feedback. He is unpopular with colleagues because of his ‘work to rule’ approach, and because he rarely, if ever, takes on non-core jobs such as chairing committees or providing cover for absent colleagues.
He has had numerous verbal and informal discussions with the medical director about his attitude and chronic behavioural patterns, but there has never been any specific safety or conduct incident that would merit a formal disciplinary investigation. There are no known health concerns.
back to menu
While it may seem counter-intuitive for Dr Kendal to be able to revalidate alongside his more cooperative and civil colleagues, it is important to look carefully and fairly at whether the concerns about his behaviour relate to the areas that underpin revalidation. While Dr Kendal’s conduct is clearly wanting in several areas, and action should be taken you need to decide whether these amount to poor performance that should be addressed through local procedures or fitness to practise concerns that would affect your recommendation. Advice from your Employer Liaison Adviser will help you make this decision.
From a revalidation perspective, he has engaged sufficiently with appraisal, and he has collected all the relevant types of supporting information. Assuming that, as Dr Kendal’s RO, you are assured of the quality of the appraisal system, then Dr Kendal may well have met the requirements for revalidation.
The temptation to think about Dr Kendal’s behavioural issues in light of his revalidation shows how important it is to locate any evaluation of a doctor’s performance properly, and how revalidation is not a standalone process but is underpinned by other systems. Dr Kendal’s attitude and behaviours may not prevent his revalidation but if, as seems likely, they are in conflict with the standard of conduct the trust expects from its employees, then you would most likely want to consider disciplinary processes or remediation, that will deal with this more effectively and proportionately.
If a local disciplinary or remediation process is instigated, you might consider whether to request a deferral of Dr Kendal’s revalidation submission date while the local process concludes. Again you should seek the advice of your Employer Liaison Adviser before making this request.
back to menu