General Medical Council

About: General Medical Council is a government organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Public health. The organization has 69 authors who have published 111 publications receiving 1663 citations. The organization is also known as: GMC.

Low expression of CD39 and CD73 genes in centenarians compared with octogenarians

Abstract: Ageing involves a progressive decline of the body’s regulatory systems including immune system. Adenosine regulates immune function by interaction with its receptors, mainly adenosine A2A receptor, present on the surface of immune cells. Furthermore, cellular response to this nucleoside is highly dependent on its extracellular concentration that is regulated by ecto-enzymes such as CD39 and CD73. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of age on adenosine A2A receptor, CD39 and CD73 gene expression. Changes in mRNA were measured by quantitative PCR from peripheral blood of young, middle-aged and older adults as well as centenarians. Centenarians showed a prominent decrease of CD39 and CD73 mRNA in comparison with older adults. Regarding to adenosine A2A receptor, we detected two subgroups of centenarians with high and low level of transcript. Additionally, adenosine A2A receptor mRNA level of centenarians, did not correlate with their cognitive impairment. In summary, our pilot study suggests that unlike of adenosine A2A receptor, the level of CD39 as well as CD73 mRNA could be a hallmark of successful human ageing.

The advertising of doctors' services.

Abstract: Medicine is unique among professions and trades, offering a 'product' which is unlike any other. The consequences for patients of being attracted by misleading information to an inappropriate doctor or service are such as to demand special restrictions on the advertising of doctors' services. Furthermore, health care in the UK is organised around the 'referral system', whereby general practitioners refer patients to specialists when necessary rather than have specialists accept patients on self-referral. But this need not inhibit the provision of helpful factual information to those who need it. Recent policy changes by the General Medical Council considerably broaden the scope for general practitioners to make factual information of their services available to local people, while safeguarding the public against promotional activities which are designed to increase demand for certain kinds of specialist service by playing upon individuals' fears and lack of medical knowledge.

Engagement, not personal characteristics, was associated with the seriousness of regulatory adjudication decisions about physicians: a cross-sectional study.

Abstract: Outcomes of processes questioning a physician’s ability to practise —e.g. disciplinary or regulatory— may strongly impact their career and provided care. However, it is unclear what factors relate systematically to such outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, we investigate this via multivariate, step-wise, statistical modelling of all 1049 physicians referred for regulatory adjudication at the UK medical tribunal, from June 2012 to May 2017, within a population of 310,659. In order of increasing seriousness, outcomes were: no impairment (of ability to practise), impairment, suspension (of right to practise), or erasure (its loss). This gave adjusted odds ratios (OR) for: age, race, sex, whether physicians first qualified domestically or internationally, area of practice (e.g. GP, specialist), source of initial referral, allegation type, whether physicians attended their outcome hearing, and whether they were legally represented for it. There was no systematic association between the seriousness of outcomes and the age, race, sex, domestic/international qualification, or the area of practice of physicians (ORs p≥0.05), except for specialists who tended to receive outcomes milder than suspension or erasure. Crucially, an apparent relationship of outcomes to age (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.009) or domestic/international qualification (χ2,p=0.014) disappeared once controlling for hearing attendance (ORs p≥0.05). Both non-attendance and lack of legal representation were consistently related to more serious outcomes (ORs [95% confidence intervals], 5.28 [3.89, 7.18] and 1.87 [1.34, 2.60], respectively, p<0.001). All else equal, personal characteristics or first qualification place were unrelated to the seriousness of regulatory outcomes in the UK. Instead, engagement (attendance and legal representation), allegation type, and referral source were importantly associated to outcomes. All this may generalize to other countries and professions.

Training the assessors for the General Medical Council's Performance Procedures.

Abstract: From July 1997, the General Medical Council (GMC) has had the power to investigate doctors whose performance is considered to be seriously deficient. Assessment procedures have been developed for all medical specialties to include peer review of performance in practice and tests of competence. Peer review is conducted by teams of at least two medical assessors and one lay assessor. A comprehensive training programme for assessors has been developed that simulates the context of a typical practice-based assessment and has been tailored for 12 medical specialties. The training includes the principles of assessment, familiarization with the assessment instruments and supervised practice in assessment methods used during the peer review visit. High fidelity is achieved through the use of actors who simulate third party interviewees and trained doctors who role play the assessee. A subgroup of assessors, selected to lead the assessment teams, undergo training in handling group dynamics, report writing and in defending the assessment report against legal challenge. Debriefing of assessors following real assessments has been strongly positive with regard to their preparedness and confidence in undertaking the assessment.

Will we be getting good doctors and safer patients

Abstract: Last week, the Department of Health announced its plans for reforming regulation of doctors. The BMJ asked some of those affected for their opinions