Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
[1]: 32 One of the recommendations in the fifth report of The Shipman Inquiry, which was published in December 2004, was for the adjudication stage of fitness to practise procedures to be undertaken by a body that is independent of the General Medical Council (GMC).[5] In July 2011, the GMC approved proposals to separate its presentation of fitness to practise cases from their adjudication.[6] In June 2012 the MPTS assumed responsibility for medical tribunals, with their panels given the power to remove or suspend a doctor's ability to work within the UK.[10] In March 2015, changes to the Medical Act mean that the GMC gained the ability to appeal against decisions made by the MPTS.[11] In 2014 legislation was introduced the GMC gained powers around demanding proof of competence in English from doctors coming from within the EU.[13] David Pearl became the first Chair of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on 11 June 2012, after being appointed through an independent process in February of that year.[17] Upon the GMC commencing an investigating they may at any stage make a referral to the Interim Orders Tribunal ("IOT") to restrict a doctor's practise and registration.For example, if the allegation is that a doctor's health is causing practise difficulties, the GMC may seek a condition limiting hours of work while they investigate.[28] The GMC will refer a case to the MPTS for a hearing if they believe the allegation is such that a doctor's fitness to practise is impaired, this can be proven and the likely sanction is one of the more serious ones beyond an undertaking or a warning that they can impose.If some or all of the facts in the allegation/s are found proved the MPT will move to consider whether a doctor's fitness to practise is impaired which is Stage 2 of the hearing process.The MPT's frequently refer to Dame Janet Smith in the fifth Shipman Report, as adopted by the High Court in CHRE v NMC and Paula Grant [2011] EWCH 297 Admin.[32] If the Tribunal determine that a doctor's fitness to practise remains impaired the next stage is to consider if any sanction should be imposed.[44] Before any sanction is considered the GMC or MPTS must first be satisfied that a doctor's fitness to practise is currently impaired.If there is no impairment then a tribunal cannot impose a sanction, though they can and should consider whether a Warning should be issued where a doctor significantly departs from Good Medical Practice.[55] Erasure from the register is the most onerous sanction that can be imposed on a doctor by the MPT and imposed if it is the only means of protecting the public[56] If a doctor's name is erased from the register following a fitness to practise hearing they may not apply for restoration until five years after the date of erasure and only one application can be made in any twelve-month period.[64] The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social care also has a right to be a party to an appeal pursuant to Section 40B of the Medical Act 1983.