The handling by the General Medical Council of cases involving whistleblowers - The Hooper Review (19 March 2015)

Summary

This report was produced by retired judge Sir Anthony Hooper, who was invited to carry out an independent review of how the General Medical Council (GMC) engages with whistleblowers who have raised concerns in the public interest. The report examines:

• Patient safety, the duty to raise concerns and the duty of candour
• Reprisals against those who raise concerns
• Legal framework of the GMC
• Recommendations on the handling of referrals in circumstances where the doctor has raised concerns
• The handling of cases involving those who have reported concerns to the GMC

Content

Recommendations

1. Organisations referring a doctor’s fitness to practise to the GMC should be encouraged to answer a written question the effect of which is to ascertain whether the doctor being referred has raised concerns about patient safety or the integrity of the system.
2. Organisations referring a doctor’s fitness to practise to the GMC should be encouraged to have the document containing the allegation signed by a registered doctor and to contain a statement by the doctor to the effect that: “I believe that the facts stated in this document are true”.
3. If the written document containing the allegation is not signed by a registered doctor and/or does not contain a statement to the effect that “I believe that the facts stated in this document are true”, organisations should be encouraged to explain why this has not been done.
4.  If a doctor being referred to the GMC has raised concerns about patient safety or the integrity of the system with the organisation making the referral, then the necessary steps should be taken to obtain from the organisation material which is relevant to an understanding of the context in which the referral is made.
5. Investigators assessing the credibility of an allegation made by an organisation against a doctor who has raised a concern should take into account, in assessing the merits of the allegation, any failure on the part of an organisation to investigate the concern raised and/or have proper procedures in place to encourage and handle the raising of concerns.
6. In those cases where an allegation is made by an organisation against a doctor who has raised concerns, the Registrar should, where it is appropriate to do so, exercise his powers under rule 4(4) to conduct an examination into that allegation, including taking the steps outlined in my earlier recommendations and asking the doctor for his or her comments on the allegation and the circumstances in which the allegation came to be made. 
7. Those who investigate allegations made against doctors who have raised concerns must be fully trained to understand “whistleblowing”, particularly in the context of the GMC and the NHS.
8. The GMC, together with healthcare regulators, professional organisations, unions and defence bodies, set up a simple, confidential and voluntary online system, run by an organisation independent of the regulators. The system would enable healthcare professionals to record electronically the fact that they have raised a concern with their employers, what steps they have taken to deal with the concerns, including details of when and with whom the concerns were raised. The date and time at which the healthcare professional made the entries would be recorded. Access to the record would be restricted to the professional or another person with his or her consent.