UK’s General Medial Council Suffers Further Criticism
Britain’s General Medial Council (GMC) (the regulatory body for doctors) has been stung by further criticism for its handling of complaints against practitioners. In a report from the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), one of Britain's leading research institutes, the GMC’s procedures were categorized as confusing, insufficiently open and inconsistent.

The report accuses the Council of failing to establish clear criteria for assessing complaints, and failing to agree upon a definition of serious professional misconduct. The report states, "In the absence of evidence of consistency and transparency at all stages of the GMC fitness to practice procedures, it remains difficult to demonstrate that all doctors are treated fairly, although there is no evidence that they are not." The report notes that the absence of clear standards has led to difficulties with consistency throughout the complaints procedure process. It also expressed concern that fewer than half (47 percent) of complaints assessed by the GMC Preliminary Proceedings Committee were sent for a full hearing. The process which sends complaints for review prior to reaching this committee was also judged to result in "unnecessary duplication and delay."

The report’s recommendations include that allegations of dishonesty, sexual assault, indecency and violence should bypass the first two stages and be sent straight to a full hearing. Furthermore, it states that those reviewing complaints should provide reasons for deciding a complaint did not amount to serious professional misconduct. The report did, however, praise the GMC for holding the full hearing process in public. Responding to the report Lord Patel, a spokesman for the GMC, stated that "the challenge now is to look urgently at the report’s conclusions and take all steps to ensure our procedures are demonstrably fair, objective, transparent, and free from discrimination." The report was originally commissioned by the GMC, to discover whether the GMC was guilty of racism. It found no evidence of charges of discrimination.

This report follows recent criticism that the GMC takes too long in handling complaints, and for the way that recent high profile cases have been handled. In addition, the British Medical Association (the representative body for doctors) approved a vote of no confidence in the GMC at its annual meeting in June.

Links:
General Medical Council: http://www.gmc-uk.org
Policy Studies Institute: http://www.psi.org.uk
Policy Studies Institute Report Press Release: http://www.psi.org.uk/press/020800.htm
British Medical Association: http://web.bma.org.uk/homepage.nsf

Swiss Canton to Introduce Hospital Quality Control Standard
From next year, all hospitals in the canton (region) of Zurich will be assessed next year in an attempt to receive certification from Concret SA, a newly recognized accreditation agency. The Concret SA employs an evaluation method designed to assess quality of care provided. Developed in conjunction with the ASI (Association professionnelle suisse des infirmières et infirmiers - the Swiss Association of Nurses), nearly two decades ago, the method of evaluation was recognized in August 1999, as Concret SA became the official body of accreditation.

To receive certification, inspections are carried out on all care units which typically last three and a half days. During this time, two specialized experts visit and produce reports based on observation of patient care, including the documents associated with the care provided to the patient in question. In addition, interviews are held with care providers to ensure an accurate picture is established of the measures that have been taken, and of the ability of the facility staff. On the third day, a presentation of the report is made to the whole unit. The final report is submitted subsequently in written form. Six months to one year after the inspection, an audit is carried out to review whether recommendations have been acted upon, and standards raised (where necessary). Given a favorable report by those conducting the audit, certification is granted.

Concret SA points to the following benefits of the accreditation process: inter-professional collaboration is improved; the management of the facility is provided feedback about the level of care in the institution; care providers receive a constructive performance evaluation from a neutral agency; and future training needs are highlighted. Concret SA reports that while the first reaction of staff is often is skepticism, the long-term response has been positive as staff see ways of improving skills, and becoming more productive without necessarily increasing their workload.

LINKS
ASI web site: http://www.sbk-asi.ch

Front Page