Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Patel (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Question for short debate on Health: Doctors and Patients.


Health: Doctors and Patients

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for securing this debate; of course, it would have been better to have had more time. Much of what I have to say has been covered by the noble Lord, and I agree that there is a clear need for further elucidation of how many of the recommendations would work in practice. However, I am pleased that patient safety is central to all the proposals in the White Paper. But then, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I am the chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency. While I am at it, I might as well declare my previous interests, relating to colleges, the GMC and educational authorities. I have some concerns, not about the proposals but about how clear, crisp legislation can be drafted on recommendations on affiliates, information-sharing and rehabilitation, for example. Who would the affiliate, as a local regulator, be accountable to? Could there not be a potential conflict of interest? How will she or he work across various NHS and private sector providers of care? Hard regulatory information about an individual practitioner is relatively easy to legislate for, but softer information and its sharing is much more complex. The questions are how and when the work will be taken forward, and who by? I welcome the proposals on rehabilitation for health professionals who get into difficulty. This is a proper way forward and a modern approach to workforce management. We already have a framework developed by the National Clinical Assessment Service—part of the National Patient Safety Agency—to take this forward. In my view, it does not require further legislation. What is being done to do this and, importantly, how will it be resourced? For example, over the past three years about 500 doctors have been referred to the National Clinical Assessment Service for further evaluation. If revalidation and recertification throw up the same percentage of doctors—about 3 per cent to 5 per cent—the resources required would be considerable. The briefs that we have received, particularly from the GMC and the BMA, differ in their perception of how this will work. However, my view is that revalidation, recertification and appraisal work, which will now form the statutory responsibilities of the colleges, is the right way forward. The colleges will have to recognise that they will have to produce, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, a robust system that can be tested and that they have to be accountable. I hope that they will address that. In my role with the National Patient Safety Agency, I will look to see that patient safety is embedded thoroughly in all the proposals.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c286-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conduct Bureaucracy Doctors General Medical Council Evidence Health professions Patients Protection Standards Training Regulation Safety Chief Medical Officer
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk