How we safeguard whistleblowers in our processes
He made eight recommendations to help prevent our processes being used against doctors who have raised concerns.
Our new process to protect doctors against unfair referrals
We’re piloting ato make sure referrals from employers about doctors into our fitness to practise procedures are fair and appropriate.
As part of the pilot, referrers now need to complete a form. It asks:
- whether the doctor they’re referring has previously raised public interest concerns and if those concerns have been investigated
- whether the doctor knows about the referral
- them to declare that the referral is being made in good faith and is accurate and fair.
When we know that a doctor has previously raised patient or public safety concerns, we seek independent corroboration of the allegations in the employer’s referral. This helps us decide if we need to carry out a full investigation. If a full investigation is needed, we let our decision makers aware of the whistleblowing history, so they can take this into account when deciding what action to take.
If we close the close the case with no action, we discuss why the referral was made with the doctor’s responsible officer or suitable person.
We hope to conclude the pilot soon and then make the process part of our usual ways of working.
Making sure revalidation recommendations are fair and appropriate
It says responsible officers or suitable persons must speak to their employer liaison adviser before they submit a consecutive deferral or non-engagement recommendation for a doctor who has raised public interest concerns.
We’ve also introduced a process, to allow doctors to tell us if they think that raising a concern has affected their revalidation. We consider this information before we make any decisions about withdrawing a doctor’s licence to practise.