Features: Trainee erased
28 September 2009
Public’s trust in profession betrayed by doctor in training.
A Fitness to Practise Panel has directed that the name of a doctor, employed as a Foundation Year 2 (F2) trainee, be erased from the medical register following findings that she had submitted online assessments that purported, falsely, to be made by colleagues.
As part of her F2 programme, the doctor had to ensure that a number of workplace-based assessments were submitted by colleagues. The doctor submitted seven reports on direct observation of procedural skills, two reports on a mini-clinical evaluation exercise and two reports on case-based discussions. All these reports purported to be made by colleagues but were made by the doctor herself.
When considering whether the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired, the Panel noted that Good Medical Practice (2006) stated at paragraphs 56 and 57: ‘Probity means being honest and trustworthy, and acting with integrity: this is at the heart of medical professionalism. You must ensure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.’
The Panel concluded that by her dishonest and misleading actions, the doctor had brought the profession into disrepute, and breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, that her integrity had been impugned and that her fitness to practise was impaired.
In considering what sanction to impose, the Panel took into account the circumstances of the case. It noted that the doctor’s actions were not isolated incidents and that her dishonesty was repeated over a six month period.
The doctor, who did not attend the hearing and who was not represented, had written an open letter to the GMC almost a year before the hearing setting out her observations on the events. The Panel, however, concluded that she had shown little insight into the seriousness of her actions and noted that she had taken no steps, since writing the letter, to engage with her regulatory body.
The Panel concluded that her actions were a serious betrayal of the public’s trust in the medical profession. It considered that neither the imposition of conditions nor a period of suspension would be proportionate or sufficient to mark the seriousness of her misconduct and, therefore, directed that her name be erased from the medical register.