Public confidence research 2026
Why did we commission this research?
We commissioned this independent research to make sure our approach to public confidence remains fair, proportionate, and reflects the public’s expectations. We wanted to explore, when the behaviour of a doctor, physician associate (PA), or anaesthesia associate (AA) – either outside the workplace or when not directly affecting patients - would undermine the public’s trust in their profession.
There are low levels of awareness of our public confidence role, so it was important to hear the public’s views on these cases.
We wanted to understand what, if any, regulatory action the public think is appropriate in different scenarios involving public confidence. We also wanted to understand why the public holds those views.
What did the research involve?
The research had a qualitative and quantitative phase:
- Qualitative phase: This involved an online forum and 12 live discussion groups with the public.
- Quantitative phase: This involved a survey of 2,000 members of the public. To make sure the sample was representative across the four countries of the UK, age, gender, and socio-economic group, quotas were set.
In both research phases, participants explored hypothetical scenarios involving dishonesty, violence, social media and criminal behaviour. They were asked to rate their level of concern in terms of the GMC’s objective to maintain public confidence in the professions it regulates.
What were the key findings and learnings?
Importance of maintaining public confidence
85% of respondents agreed that it’s important GMC registrants’ behaviour outside the workplace is in keeping with the professional standards expected of them. Only 2% disagreed. Additionally, at least half the participants in the online survey judged all scenarios to be of moderate or high concern. This shows the importance of the GMC assessing if action may be needed to protect the public in these types of case.
All scenarios generated a broad spectrum of reactions
Levels of concern varied across the scenarios.
Inconsistent alignment between seriousness of concern and GMC action
The perceived seriousness of a concern and recommended action were closely related, but didn’t always align. In every scenario, there were respondents who judged the issue to be of high concern yet still recommended no action. Conversely, some respondents expressed low or no concern and advocated for the most serious GMC sanctions.
Expectation of case-by-case judgement
A common theme was that the GMC’s response should depend on the specific facts of the case, with participants in the qualitative research often asking for additional context. This suggests that the public regard the circumstances of a concern to be important, in order to decide on the appropriate GMC action.
A warning was the most suggested sanction
In some scenarios, overall concern was high, yet the most suggested sanction was a warning. Warnings are used where the registrant’s behaviour has significantly departed from the professional standards, but it’s not necessary to restrict their ability to work. They are published for two years.
Conditions was the expected sanction in some scenarios
Although the GMC does not generally use conditions, such as supervision in non-clinical cases, the qualitative research showed that there are scenarios where participants might expect to see a sanction between a warning and suspension, that typically involved monitoring, chaperoning and/ or retraining.
Behaviour and experiences to consider when assessing a concern
Repeated behaviour was the factor that most participants viewed as making the situation and sanction more serious. Registrants having personal problems, such as experiencing a bereavement, and the behaviour being a one-off, were most likely to be viewed as reasons for a less severe sanction.
Broad difference in how concerns are considered related to sex and age
Broad differences included females expressing greater concern about violence and being more likely to support stronger action in such cases than males. Younger people tended to be less concerned about cases involving the expression of potentially offensive views, and they were also less concerned about dishonesty cases.
How will the research inform our approach?
The research findings will provide an important source of evidence as we review our processes and thresholds, in preparation for reforms to the way we regulate. They will also inform future updates to the information we provide to the public and our registrants about our fitness to practise role.
