Reflecting on our first engagement panel for regulatory reform

Published 24 November 2025

Why we commissioned this research

The UK government is reforming how we and other healthcare professional regulators work. As a first step towards reform, we became a multiprofessional regulator responsible for the regulation of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs). This followed the introduction of the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order (AAPAO), which came into force in December 2024.

As we prepared for these changes, we wanted to make sure that members of the public, doctors, PAs and AAs could help shape the way we work in the future. While we regularly engage these groups through consultations and research, for this work we aimed to go further by exploring whether we could draw on principles of co-production and collaborate more intensively with our audiences to produce policies, processes and communications. 

To help us do this, we commissioned the research agency Community Research to bring together a panel of 30 members of the public, doctors, PAs and AAs. This project was a new approach for us, as we explored how different groups could collaborate with each other and engage with complex subject matter in a co-productive way over an extended period. 

What did the research involve?

Community Research recruited and ran the panel on our behalf. The panel was made up of a diverse group of 15 members of the public and 15 professionals - doctors, a medical student, PAs, and AAs. We aimed for broad representation across the four countries of the UK, covering different ages, genders, ethnicities, and a range of specialties among doctors, including some who qualified abroad. 

The panel members participated in up to four engagement sessions between April 2024 and March 2025. These included a mix of face to face and online workshops, and online forums. The engagement sessions focused on the following areas: 

  • A new fitness to practise process 
  • Challenging decisions in fitness to practise
  • Compassionate communications in fitness to practise
  • Communicating our role in education quality assurance.

Key impacts and reflections 

Having an ongoing dialogue with the same group of participants gave us fresh, external perspectives on some of the more complex areas of our work. 

The panel feedback has had the most impact on how we communicate what we do at the GMC but has also made a difference to discussions around our policy and processes. For example:

  • The panel contributed to a decision to change our proposed approach of using a single case examiner for certain fitness to practise decisions, instead opting to retain two case examiners. 
  • We’ve updated the form used to request a revision of a decision and revised our frequently asked questions to make it clearer how decisions can be challenged in fitness to practise and how it is independent of our other work.  
  • Reflections on the letters we send in fitness to practise have informed the drafting of new versions. We’ll also use feedback to build on the set of principles that staff are trained to follow when drafting communications to complainants or registrants. 
  • We’re considering changes to our webpages explaining quality assurance in education, focusing on the level of information provided and how it’s presented to different audiences.   

Because this was a new approach for us, we’ve also taken time to reflect on what worked well and what we could improve for future engagement activities.

What worked well?

  • The panel successfully contributed to our primary aim of meaningfully embedding participants’ voices in our work.    
  • It demonstrated that it’s possible to bring together diverse groups to work collaboratively, with almost all participants giving positive feedback.
  • It was particularly valuable for GMC colleagues to hear participant feedback directly and, where appropriate, take part in the discussions themselves. 

What did we learn?

  • Bringing different audiences together should be guided by the purpose. Some topics suit different audiences better, and in some cases engaging separately might be more effective. While desirable, true co-production may not always be feasible or proportionate.
  • Developing briefing materials and sessions can be very time consuming, but this is essential to facilitate effective engagement sessions.
  • We learned numerous practical lessons about how to deliver panels more effectively in the future.

These reflections will help shape how we approach future engagements, ensuring they remain meaningful, inclusive, and impactful.

Download the research

Reflecting on our first engagement panel for regulatory reform