Labour's Got Talent | Political Reality Show | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi | The QuackFather

Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Power - Broker | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi

Medical Licensing Commission : Fundamental Regulatory Differences Between the MLC and the GMC

*Key Differences Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) General Medical Council (GMC)
Jurisdiction International United Kingdom
Licentiate Practising Rights Global United Kingdom
Leadership Structure Worldwide Residents (Multi - Racial) United Kingdom Residents (Mainly White Caucasian)
Licensure Format 50 Year Fixed Tenure, without any Annual Hassles or Complications Annual (at the sole discretion of the GMC)
Basic Licensure Cost Basic Licensure : Less than 50 Pence (50p) Per Month ( Payable as a one-off Fee for the whole 50 Year Tenure) One Year of Basic General Medical Council Licensure (and Registration) costs more than the whole 50 Year Basic MLC Offering.
Licensure Fee Increments Permanently Fixed from the day you join Not Permanently Fixed from the day you join
Scope of Clinical Practise Multiple Grey Areas within Orthodox Conventional Clinical Medicine which are not exclusive to GMC Licensed Doctors (i.e those duties which are performed by those who do not have GMC Licensure e.g Nurses, Pharmacists, Therapists, Technicians etc) ; PLUS Self-Care, Self-Help, Empowerment , Alternative Medicine , Traditional Medicine , Non- Surgical Cosmetic Procedures, Anti-Ageing , Mind Therapies, Energy Healing , Bodywork , Natural Fertility Support, Advanced Wellness Interventions , OTC Remedies etc Orthodox Conventional Clinical Medicine Only
Professional Liability Insurance Worldwide Cover from a wide range of International Organizations The GMC Requires Compulsory Insurance from Medical Defence Union and Medical Protection Societies within the UK
Certificate of Good Standing A 50 Year Certificate is Automatically Issued to each Licentiate upon Formal MLC Certification The GMC has Full Control of it's Registrant's Certificate of Good Standing ; and usually refuses to issue it directly to them.
Disciplinary Procedures All Formal MLC Complaints are officially forwarded directly to the Licentiates Themselves , for onward consideration and Possible Transmission to their Appropriate Professional Indemnity Providers (Insurers). The MLC will never Suspend or Erase or Strike Off . There are no Fanciful Public Show Trials either The GMC prouldy seems to formidably display a relatively unquenchable thirst for Excruciatingly Humiliating Public Disciplinary Hearings ; together with Draconian Suspension and Erasure Powers
Damage (Crisis) Control , When Things Go Wrong The Medical Licensing Commission always helps it's Licentiates to get back on their feet again - and Fly . . . The General Medical Council almost always seems to publicly rejoice whenever Precious Medical Careers sadly seem to be Helplessly Sinking down the drain . . .
Statutory Name Medical Licensing Commission General Medical Council
Professional Title of Registrants Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) Consultant General Medical Council (GMC) Registered Medical Practitioner
Exclusive Professional Prefix for Registrants Medical Licensing Commission Licentiates can either apply for their very own unique MLC Prefix Title - or lawfully use their original Doctor Title if they so wish , provided that they do not describe themselves as being a General Medical Council (GMC) Registered Medical Practitioner None. The GMC does not hold any Exclusive Statutory Rights to the title of Doctor.
Private Clinic Opportunities Medical Licensing Commission Licentiates can swiftly set up their very own Private Clinics immediately their MLC License , Professional Indemnity Insurance and Immigration Formalities (if necessary) are in place. The General Medical Council Establishment often prevents it's Registrants from running their very own Private Clinics ; especially those who are relatively young in the Medical Profession.

Exceedingly Important Professional News From The Medical Licensing Commission (MLC)

Important Professional Update from the Medical Licensing Commission (MLC):

Effective from the 16th of November 2009 , all UK (and Irish) Applicants for Registration with the Medical Licensing Commission will be subject to Additional Competence Checks.

All Potential MLC Applicants are therefore strongly advised to thoroughly ensure that they appropriately finish all of their MLC Licensure Formalities before 12 Midnight on the 15th of November 2009.

After the 16th of November 2009 , all UK (and Irish) Candidates will be required to sit for the MLC Entrance Exam which costs GBP 2999.

The Chief Regulatory Purpose of the MLC Entrance Exam will solely be to objectively decide whether a Specific Candidate is eligible for either MLC Option 1 or MLC Option 2. It will also assess whether a Specific Candidate will be ethically required to undergo Further Training prior to Formal MLC Licensure.

The Basic (MLC Option 1) 50 Year MLC Licensure Fee will still remain permanently fixed at GBP 299.

International Candidates (outside the UK and Ireland) will also be similarly affected.

* * *

CURRENT JOB VACANCIES & CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

(MLC Registered) Clinical Examiners are Urgently Wanted for International Online Courses.

* * *

Doctor Joseph Obi | Alternative Medicine | Dr Obi | Alternative Health | Dr Joseph Obi | Integrative Natural Medicine | Doctor Obi | Integrative Natural Health | Professor Joseph Obi | Integrated Medicine | Professor Obi | Integrated Health | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Complementary Medicine | Prof Obi | Complementary Health | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi | Native Traditional Medicine | Joseph Obi | Native Traditional Health

Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi | MLC | Doctor Obi | Dr Obi | Medical News Update

Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM (DUBLIN) : " Join the Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) Today !"



Labour's Got Talent | Political Reality Show | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi | The QuackFather

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Dr Joseph Obi

Dr Joseph Obi | Doc Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Joseph Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Obi Blog | Doctor Obi Blog | Prof Obi Blog | Professor Obi Blog



Joseph Chikelue Obi | Evidence Based Medical Regulation | What Eminent UK Researchers Are Saying | Part 1 (C) | Updated With Another Smiling Face | Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog

. . . Follow Joseph Chikelue Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Joseph Obi on Twitter . . .



* * *

BMJ 2011; 342:d1817 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1817

(Published on : 05 April 2011)

Cite this as: BMJ 2011; 342:d1817

Place of medical qualification and outcomes of UK General Medical Council “fitness to practise” process: cohort study.

Charlotte Humphrey, professor of health care evaluation (*1),
Shaista Hickman, research associate (*1),
Martin C Gulliford, professor of public health (*2)

+ Author Affiliations

(*1). Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
(*2). Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 3QD

Correspondence To : C Humphrey 

charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted on : 01 February 2011


Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries.

Design : Retrospective cohort study.

Setting : Medical practice in the United Kingdom.

Participants : 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors.

Main Outcome Measures : Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations.

Results : Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU.

Conclusions : Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.


Joseph Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi

. . . Follow Dr Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Doctor Obi on Twitter . . .

Doctor Obi | Dr Obi |Professor Joseph Obi | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Joseph Obi | Dr Joseph Obi | Professor Obi

Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Obi Blogs | Doctor Obi Blogs | Prof Obi Blogs | Professor Obi Blogs

Doctor Joseph Obi

Doctor Joseph Obi | Doc Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Joseph Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Obi Blog | Doctor Obi Blog | Prof Obi Blog | Professor Obi Blog



Joseph Chikelue Obi | Evidence Based Medical Regulation | What Eminent UK Researchers Are Saying | Part 1 (C) | Updated With Another Smiling Face | Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog

. . . Follow Joseph Chikelue Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Joseph Obi on Twitter . . .



* * *

BMJ 2011; 342:d1817 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1817

(Published on : 05 April 2011)

Cite this as: BMJ 2011; 342:d1817

Place of medical qualification and outcomes of UK General Medical Council “fitness to practise” process: cohort study.

Charlotte Humphrey, professor of health care evaluation (*1),
Shaista Hickman, research associate (*1),
Martin C Gulliford, professor of public health (*2)

+ Author Affiliations

(*1). Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
(*2). Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 3QD

Correspondence To : C Humphrey 

charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted on : 01 February 2011


Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries.

Design : Retrospective cohort study.

Setting : Medical practice in the United Kingdom.

Participants : 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors.

Main Outcome Measures : Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations.

Results : Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU.

Conclusions : Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.


Joseph Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi

. . . Follow Dr Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Doctor Obi on Twitter . . .

Doctor Obi | Dr Obi |Professor Joseph Obi | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Joseph Obi | Dr Joseph Obi | Professor Obi

Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Obi Blogs | Doctor Obi Blogs | Prof Obi Blogs | Professor Obi Blogs

Doc Joseph Obi

Doc Joseph Obi | Doc Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Joseph Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Obi Blog | Doctor Obi Blog | Prof Obi Blog | Professor Obi Blog



Joseph Chikelue Obi | Evidence Based Medical Regulation | What Eminent UK Researchers Are Saying | Part 1 (C) | Updated With Another Smiling Face | Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog

. . . Follow Joseph Chikelue Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Joseph Obi on Twitter . . .



* * *

BMJ 2011; 342:d1817 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1817

(Published on : 05 April 2011)

Cite this as: BMJ 2011; 342:d1817

Place of medical qualification and outcomes of UK General Medical Council “fitness to practise” process: cohort study.

Charlotte Humphrey, professor of health care evaluation (*1),
Shaista Hickman, research associate (*1),
Martin C Gulliford, professor of public health (*2)

+ Author Affiliations

(*1). Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
(*2). Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 3QD

Correspondence To : C Humphrey 

charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted on : 01 February 2011


Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries.

Design : Retrospective cohort study.

Setting : Medical practice in the United Kingdom.

Participants : 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors.

Main Outcome Measures : Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations.

Results : Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU.

Conclusions : Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.


Joseph Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi

. . . Follow Dr Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Doctor Obi on Twitter . . .

Doctor Obi | Dr Obi |Professor Joseph Obi | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Joseph Obi | Dr Joseph Obi | Professor Obi

Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Obi Blogs | Doctor Obi Blogs | Prof Obi Blogs | Professor Obi Blogs

Joseph Obi

Joseph Obi | Doc Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Joseph Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Obi Blog | Doctor Obi Blog | Prof Obi Blog | Professor Obi Blog



Joseph Chikelue Obi | Evidence Based Medical Regulation | What Eminent UK Researchers Are Saying | Part 1 (C) | Updated With Another Smiling Face | Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog

. . . Follow Joseph Chikelue Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Joseph Obi on Twitter . . .



* * *

BMJ 2011; 342:d1817 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1817

(Published on : 05 April 2011)

Cite this as: BMJ 2011; 342:d1817

Place of medical qualification and outcomes of UK General Medical Council “fitness to practise” process: cohort study.

Charlotte Humphrey, professor of health care evaluation (*1),
Shaista Hickman, research associate (*1),
Martin C Gulliford, professor of public health (*2)

+ Author Affiliations

(*1). Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
(*2). Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 3QD

Correspondence To : C Humphrey 

charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted on : 01 February 2011


Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries.

Design : Retrospective cohort study.

Setting : Medical practice in the United Kingdom.

Participants : 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors.

Main Outcome Measures : Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations.

Results : Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU.

Conclusions : Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.


Joseph Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi

. . . Follow Dr Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Doctor Obi on Twitter . . .

Doctor Obi | Dr Obi |Professor Joseph Obi | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Joseph Obi | Dr Joseph Obi | Professor Obi

Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Obi Blogs | Doctor Obi Blogs | Prof Obi Blogs | Professor Obi Blogs

Thursday, 9 May 2013

The QuackFather

Chikelue Obi | Alternative Medicine Strongman | The QuackFather | Quack Father | The Quack Father | QuackFather | Strongman-in-Chief

Joseph Chikelue Obi | Quack Medicine Books | The QuackFather | Medical Quackery Books

Chikelue Obi

Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog | Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Joseph Obi Blog | Doctor Joseph Obi Blog | Prof Joseph Obi Blog | Professor Joseph Obi Blog | Dr Obi Blog | Doctor Obi Blog | Prof Obi Blog | Professor Obi Blog



Joseph Chikelue Obi | Evidence Based Medical Regulation | What Eminent UK Researchers Are Saying | Part 1 (C) | Updated With Another Smiling Face | Joseph Chikelue Obi Blog

. . . Follow Joseph Chikelue Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Joseph Obi on Twitter . . .



* * *

BMJ 2011; 342:d1817 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1817

(Published on : 05 April 2011)

Cite this as: BMJ 2011; 342:d1817

Place of medical qualification and outcomes of UK General Medical Council “fitness to practise” process: cohort study.

Charlotte Humphrey, professor of health care evaluation (*1),
Shaista Hickman, research associate (*1),
Martin C Gulliford, professor of public health (*2)

+ Author Affiliations

(*1). Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London SE1 8WA, UK
(*2). Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 3QD

Correspondence To : C Humphrey 

charlotte.humphrey@kcl.ac.uk

Accepted on : 01 February 2011


Abstract

Objectives : To evaluate whether country of medical qualification is associated with “higher impact” decisions at different stages of the UK General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) “fitness to practise” process after allowing for other characteristics of doctors and inquiries.

Design : Retrospective cohort study.

Setting : Medical practice in the United Kingdom.

Participants : 7526 inquiries to the GMC concerning 6954 doctors.

Main Outcome Measures : Proportion of inquiries referred for further investigation at initial triage by the GMC, proportion of inquiries investigated that were subsequently referred for adjudication, and proportion of inquiries resulting in doctors being erased or suspended from the medical register; relative odds of higher impact decisions, by country of qualification, adjusted for doctors’ sex, years since primary medical qualification, medical specialty, source and type of inquiry, and nature of allegations.

Results : Of 7526 inquiries, 4702 concerned doctors who qualified in the UK, 624 concerned doctors who qualified elsewhere in the European Union (EU), and 2190 concerned doctors who qualified outside the EU. At the initial triage, 30% (n=1398) of inquiries concerning doctors who qualified in the UK had a high impact decision, compared with 43% (267) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 46% (998) for those who qualified outside the EU. The adjusted relative odds of an inquiry being referred for further investigation were 1.67 (95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.17) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.61 (1.38 to 1.88) for those who qualified outside the EU, compared with doctors who qualified in the UK. At the investigation stage, 5% (228) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors were referred for adjudication, compared with 10% for EU (63) or non-EU (221) qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of referral for adjudication were 2.14 (1.46 to 3.16) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.68 (1.31 to 2.16) for those who qualified outside the EU. At the adjudication stage, 1% (69) of inquiries received concerning UK qualified doctors led to erasure or suspension, compared with 4% (24) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 3% (71) for non-EU qualified doctors. The adjusted relative odds of erasure or suspension were 2.16 (1.22 to 3.80) for doctors who qualified elsewhere in the EU and 1.48 (1.00 to 2.19) for those who qualified outside the EU.

Conclusions : Inquiries to the GMC concerning doctors qualified outside the UK are more likely to be associated with higher impact decisions at each stage of the fitness to practice process. These associations were not explained by measured inquiry related and doctor related characteristics, but residual confounding cannot be excluded.


Joseph Chikelue Obi | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi

. . . Follow Dr Obi on Twitter . . .

. . . Follow Doctor Obi on Twitter . . .

Doctor Obi | Dr Obi |Professor Joseph Obi | Joseph Chikelue Obi | Joseph Obi | Dr Joseph Obi | Professor Obi

Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi Blogs | Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Joseph Obi Blogs | Doctor Joseph Obi Blogs | Prof Joseph Obi Blogs | Professor Joseph Obi Blogs | Dr Obi Blogs | Doctor Obi Blogs | Prof Obi Blogs | Professor Obi Blogs