International News

EU Parliament Signals Concerns Regarding Proposed Mutual Recognition Directive

At its meeting on June 16-17, 2003 the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of the European Union (EU) Parliament, concern was expressed about the proposed Mutual Recognition Directive. Of particular concern to Parliamentary Rapportuer Stefano Zappala are the limited requirements for migrating professionals, in that they either need complete an aptitude test, or complete an adaptation period. Zappala asserts that the Member States and their professional regulatory organizations should choose which of these options is required, rather than leaving this choice to the incoming professional. Zappala also took exception to the proposal (contained in the Directive) that a service provider should automatically be considered "established" in a Member State after sixteen weeks. Complete minutes from the meeting are available via the committee web site.

The Directive is significant in that it attempts to further professional mobility across a variety of professions, as opposed to legislating on a profession-by-profession basis, as has previously been the case. The entire Parliament will vote on the proposed Directive this fall.

Inter-Professional Regulatory Authority Launched in the UK

April 2003 saw the launch of the Commission for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (CRHP) in the United Kingdom. The organization, which is independent from the Government, is charged with the promotion of best practice in the regulation of professionals from nine key regulatory organizations. Practitioners regulated by the following bodies are affected: General Medical Council; General Dental Council; General Optical Council; General Osteopathic Council; General Chiropractic Council; Health Professions Council; Nursing and Midwifery Council; Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland.

Core functions of CRHP are:

- the promotion of the public interest in the field of the regulation of health professionals

- the promotion of best practice in professionally-led regulation

-CRHP reports annually to Parliament on its work, and may report on the performance of individual regulatory bodies, including a comparison of their performance of similar functions.

- the promotion of co-operation and consistency across the regulation of all the healthcare professions, in the interest of patients.

- the development of principles of good regulation.

- it will also advise Ministers across the UK on professional regulation issues in healthcare

The council consists of 19 members, a majority of whom are lay members, with the remainder including a representative from each of the regulatory authorities mentioned previously.

More information about CRHP can be found on its website.

 
Record Number of UK Doctors Investigated in 2002 Report Shows

The United Kingdom's General Medical Council (GMC) examined complaints against 5,539 doctors in 2002 - up four percent on the previous year. More doctors were removed from the register, and more were placed under supervision or restricted from practising. Statistics show that investigations were related in large part to allegations of poor clinical care provided to patients. Other charges included dishonesty, sexual assault or indecency.

The figures indicate that doctors trained overseas are most likely to end up before the disciplinary committee. According to a report by the Policy Studies Institute, doctors qualifying abroad make up 30 per cent of Britain's medical workforce and attract 30 per cent of complaints. However, in 2001, they accounted for 58 per cent of doctors charged with serious professional misconduct. Moreover, they are more likely to be found guilty of an offence and are at much higher risk of being banned from practising medicine. In 2001, 77 per cent of foreign doctors facing misconduct charges were found guilty, compared to only 60 per cent of their UK-trained colleagues.

The report warns the GMC is “open to charges of discrimination” over the disproportionate number of overseas doctors being disciplined and calls for the regulator to introduce new guidelines to ensure that all doctors get a fair hearing. It also notes that although no evidence of discrimination was found, nor was a reasonable explanation for the existence of such discrepancies. It suggests a lack of transparency in GMC procedures means the organization is open to accusations that it is not treating all doctors in the same way.

Next