Article Text

Download PDFPDF

‘You feel you've been bad, not ill’: Sick doctors’ experiences of interactions with the General Medical Council
  1. Samantha K Brooks1,
  2. Lilliana Del Busso2,
  3. Trudie Chalder1,
  4. Samuel B Harvey3,
  5. Stephani L Hatch1,
  6. Matthew Hotopf1,
  7. Ira Madan4,
  8. Max Henderson1
  1. 1Institute of Psychiatry – Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK
  2. 2Faculty of Health & Social Science, Ostfold University College, Ostfold, Norway
  3. 3School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Black Dog Institute Hospital Road Randwick, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4Occupational Health, St Thomas Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Max Henderson; max.j.henderson{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To explore the views of sick doctors on their experiences with the General Medical Council (GMC) and their perception of the impact of GMC involvement on return to work.

Design Qualitative study.

Setting UK.

Participants Doctors who had been away from work for at least 6 months with physical or mental health problems, drug or alcohol problems, GMC involvement or any combination of these, were eligible for inclusion into the study. Eligible doctors were recruited in conjunction with the Royal Medical Benevolent Fund, the GMC and the Practitioner Health Programme. These organisations approached 77 doctors; 19 participated. Each doctor completed an in-depth semistructured interview. We used a constant comparison method to identify and agree on the coding of data and the identification of central themes.

Results 18 of the 19 participants had a mental health, addiction or substance misuse problem. 14 of the 19 had interacted with the GMC. 4 main themes were identified: perceptions of the GMC as a whole; perceptions of GMC processes; perceived health impacts and suggested improvements. Participants described the GMC processes they experienced as necessary, and some elements as supportive. However, many described contact with the GMC as daunting, confusing and anxiety provoking. Some were unclear about the role of the GMC and felt that GMC communication was unhelpful, particularly the language used in correspondence. Improvements suggested by participants included having separate pathways for doctors with purely health issues, less use of legalistic language, and a more personal approach with for example individualised undertakings or conditions.

Conclusions While participants recognised the need for a regulator, the processes employed by the GMC and the communication style used were often distressing, confusing and perceived to have impacted negatively on their mental health and ability to return to work.

  • MENTAL HEALTH
  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
  • OCCUPATIONAL & INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.