Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGallagher, Cathal T.
dc.contributor.authorFoster, Carmel L.
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-23T13:33:58Z
dc.date.available2015-04-23T13:33:58Z
dc.date.issued2015-03
dc.identifier.citationGallagher , C T & Foster , C L 2015 , ' Impairment and sanction in Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service fitness to practise proceedings ' , Medico-Legal Journal , vol. 83 , no. 1 , pp. 15-21 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0025817214528205
dc.identifier.issn0025-8172
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 7066484
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: ac22e2b7-5296-46ea-b4e6-9a9470913872
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85017298052
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/15816
dc.description.abstractThe principal aims of this research were to assess whether, when imposing sanctions, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances considered by the General Medical Council are first considered when determining impairment of fitness to practise and to determine whether the circumstances described by the General Medical Council in their Indicative Sanctions Guidance as warranting erasure from the Medical Register will lead to that outcome. The consideration of specific aggravating circumstances or points of mitigation when determining impairment of fitness to practise was compared to their subsequent consideration by the General Medical Council when deciding on the severity of sanction to be applied. Additionally, the proportion of cases that highlighted aggravating circumstances the General Medical Council deemed sufficiently serious to warrant erasure and the actions taken were monitored. One hundred forty-six cases heard by the General Medical Council between 1 October 2011 and 30 September 2012 met with the inclusion criteria. Fisher’s exact test was used to detect a variation from the expected distribution of data. Three of the four aggravating/mitigating circumstances were more likely to be considered when determining sanction having first been factored into the consideration of impairment. There was a statistically significant correlation between both a risk of harm and dishonesty as aggravating factors and the sanction of erasure from the Medical Register. In general, the General Medical Council consider relevant factors at all stages of their deliberations into practitioner misconduct, as required by the determinations in the cases of Cohen, Zygmunt and Azzam; and subsequently follow the guidance within their Indicative Sanctions Guidance document when determining which sanction to applyen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofMedico-Legal Journal
dc.titleImpairment and sanction in Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service fitness to practise proceedingsen
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Pharmacy
dc.contributor.institutionHealth & Human Sciences Research Institute
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Clinical Practice, Safe Medicines and Drug Misuse Research
dc.contributor.institutionPatient and Medicines Safety
dc.contributor.institutionLaw, Ethics and Professsionalism in Pharmacy Practice
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.relation.schoolSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-03
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0025817214528205
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record