GMC General Medical Council The Medical Councils of Great Britain GMC - NMC

GMC Case Examiners Dictionary and Language Guide

GMC Case Examiners Dictionary and Language Guide

This is my GMC Case Examiners Dictionary and Language Guide, it needs no further explanation but for those that find themselves on this page and are confused, here is an explanation. When you are involved in a medical incident where a loved one has received severe injuries or death, you may go down the GMC Fitness to Practise route as I did for my daughter.

If you do, be prepared for responses from the GMC case examiners and Assistant registrars that are unlike any language you may have experienced before. This is my experience during the investigation process and I liken it to electronic, physics and chemistry. To me, this is an alien language and I had not expected a Health Care Regulator who promotes ‘public protection’ to speak in such a way. My interpretation is a personal opinion only and decypher of the complex and sometimes alien language they use. Enjoy.

Opined – The GMC expert or Assistant Registrar gave their opinion
Flawed Evidence Base – The GMC case examiners never read your information
Formed the view – Someone at the GMC made their mind up
In the public Interest – The GMC think the shit will hit the fan with this one
In the Interest of Public Safety – They know the shit will hit the fan with this one
In the Interest of Public Confidence – The shit has already hit the fan with this one
Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 14 – Totally unresponsive and unconscious
Not the responsibility of the Dr – He, She has shouldered the blame to a colleague, likely a nurse
Retrospective note – Something anyone can alter or rewrite history as required
Contemporaneous noteSomething anyone can alter or rewrite history as required
Observations were normal – They didn’t do any
Not provide any comments at this stage, as is his right – They can ignore you to start with
Agreed and supported this plan – No one asked the patient, now they wish they had
The pt was haemodynamic compromised – Your blood pressure is through the floor
The pt emerged from anaesthesia without concern – They haven’t got any observations
It is unclear why – They haven’t got a clue
Good standard of practice – They spotted something that looks like good practice
May have contributed too – They spotted something else that caused it
Contributory Factors – They spotted why, but won’t say
Multidisciplinary team – No one else attended the emergency
On-Call Consultant – Lording it up at home and refusing to come it
It, therefore, remains obscure – They haven’t got a clue
Risks and Benefits were explained – They forgot to discuss it with the patient
The treatment was appropriate – They don’t know what else to say, the pt survived
Treatment options became limited – They completely run out of time for any more guesses at dx
Was entitled to assume – There was no handover or obs carried out
Realistic prospect test – Do you reckon we can get away with this one?
Conflicts in the expert evidence opinion – The experts don’t agree, let’s close the case
That the alleged events occurred – They didn’t believe you before, and they don’t now
Should have regard to the GMC’s over-arching objectives – I think we may have seriously f*^ked up here
Promote and maintain the health and safety of the public – You know your complaint is making progress now
Maintain public confidence in the profession – Protect our jobs, cover our arses and that of the registrants
This could not have been anticipated by the doctor – No one noticed the deterioration of the pt or read the notes
The Dr rightly took specialist advice – He rung the on-call consultant who gave remote advice
May be related directly or indirectly to the treatment she received – Avoidance, missing information and vague
Not supported evidentially – They are not sure if the Dr f*^ked up or not
This was an urgent situation – They forgot to gain patient consent for the treatment
The basic facts of this investigation have been well established – They read the Doctors notes again
You asked us to review our decision to close your complaint – How dare you
Assistant Registrar has decided that we should commence a review –  He has f*^ked up again and didn’t read the decision properly
The decision-maker considered all of the information relevant to the complaint – He didn’t, but he has now
The rationale for the decision – Long fancy excuse about how clever they all are
Whilst not all of the individual points raised may be specifically referred to here – They have ignored all of the difficult ones
There are two alternative grounds for a review under Rule 12 – One if we f*^ked up really badly, two if you found out!
The complaint may be materially flawed – They never read all the information again
Both of the above grounds are met – You spotted non-compliance, they f*^ked up again
There might be an ongoing risk to patient safety – Holy shit, we will be hung out to dry if this one gets in the press
Shall remain on the medical register with no restrictions – They don’t intend to do anything as they are short of Doctors
Having carefully considered all of the information and documentation – They have read it all this time, properly
An important document which ought to have been taken into account – They ignored your independent expert report first time round
The decision-maker failed to take into account a key document which is capable of affecting the outcome – Holy shit, really

Back to Fitness To Practise Table of Contents

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: