Professionals Against Child Abuse

Press Release - 10/02/2009

The GMC Fitness to Practise Committee has now acknowledged shortcomings, pointed out by PACA, in GMC procedures relating to complaints involving child protection. Following a Freedom of Information request, PACA has now discovered that the GMC plans to change its procedures.

The GMC acknowledged that they currently have no power to deal with serial or patently vexatious complainants, and that this may create unfairness for individual doctors who are either the specific target of a vexatious complainant or the random target of a serial complainant. Such circumstances are well recognised in Child Protection work, where some perpetrators of child abuse try and avoid responsibility for their actions by criticising the professionals involved.
The GMC has commented ‘the current rules do not provide us with the flexibility to deal as effectively as we would like with serial complaints or complaints that are clearly vexatious. Although such complaints are relatively uncommon, they can be very resource intensive and are unfair to doctors.’ At a meeting of the Fitness to Practice Committee in November 2008, GMC members agreed to pursue a change to their rules to allow them to reject serial or patently vexatious complaints.

A PACA spokesperson said ‘We are extremely pleased that the GMC has responded constructively to our reasoned arguments about the particular circumstances of complaints in Child Protection. Whilst we are in general highly supportive of the work of the GMC in maintaining professional standards to promote patient safety, we feel that the needs of children for protection were previously being overlooked. ‘

Doctors involved in this work may find themselves caught between the interests of parents and children, and may find themselves the subject of complaint by aggrieved parents who have been implicated in child abuse. As we see from the tragedy of cases like Victoria Climbie and others since, if children are to be properly protected, then professionals must be able to voice and act on reasonably held concerns without fear of being accused of malpractice. This GMC decision is a major step forward and we applaud them for it. ‘
Further information and comment is available from PACA via

http://www.paca.org.uk

Downloadable version of the press release (PDF)

PACA has been drawing attention for a long time to the GMC’s lack of a vexatious complaints policy. Vexatious complaints have been a serious problem for Health Professionals trying to safeguard children. For this reason as well as sending, out this press release, three PACA members have written a paper for publication in the Archives of Diseases of Childhood on A Way To Restore British Paediatricians’ Engagement With Child Protection Arch. Dis. Child. 2009 : adc.2008.154997v1

Here is the link:
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/adc.2008.154997v1

This is not the first reasoned comment published by OnMedica about safeguarding children. This one concerns the baby P case. We need to see clearly amidst all the tabloid encouraged anger.

Read the article online here
Download PDF here

We think the Laming terms of ref. give PACA adequate scope to contribute to his review. We still do not have an address for his review but note that the ministers letter says he will provide all necessary resources. We have sent our submission to the DCSF expecting them to forward it…

Terms of ref. of Laming Baby P review 17.11.08.pdf

haringey statement update12.11.08.pages.pdf

The ongoing deaths of young children as a result of abuse should signal the fact that the current system of investigation and care still has shortcomings. Perhaps the processes of classifying abuse and the investigation of abuse need reflection. These two papers might help with a reassessment of the process.

Paper on types of abuse.pdf

Police lead child protection BMJ 2003.pdf

Beatrix Campbell is a writer of great wisdom and talent. She has written perceptively about child protection “scandals” for many years, certainly since the problems that arose some years ago in the north east of England. Her comments in this article triggered by the tragedy of Baby P are very relevant and could be used to guide those in positions of influence.

Read Article here

Peter Gooderham is a PACA member and a former GP. He is currently an academic lawyer with an interest in clinical negligence, professional regulation, and the role of expert witnesses. He recently gave this presentation on the role of the GMC to the Birmingham medico legal society.

Download PDF here (3.6MB)

The determination of the GMC panel, following the recent hearing looking at the condition imposed on Dr Southalls’ license to practice, was not fully explained in a sympathetic article in the BMJ written by Clare Dyer. This rapid response now published as a letter sought to make things clearer.

Here is the letter, published 13 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2069, and reprinted here with permission.

Letter Title: Southall verdict
Subject: Clarification
PACA members wish to make it clear that the apology Professor Southall made at his recent hearing was not about the child protection importance of the episode of nose bleeding and difficulty in breathing described by Mr Clark in his own words on a television programme—an incident that had occurred in his 10 week old infant just 10 days before his sudden death.1 Southall apologised about the language in his report, which was an agenda item for a meeting of professionals involved in the family court case, including Southall, Professor David, who was acting as the instructed expert, and the child’s solicitor.

The phrasing he used was regarded as injudicious by one of five child protection experts at the recent General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing, and as a result he apologised (only to Mrs Clark) because it damaged the message he was giving and because it was originally used by the GMC in 2004 to find him guilty of serious professional misconduct, thereby causing damage to child protection in this country.

Panel members indicated that they understood only too well the importance of the nose bleeding incident (see transcripts on www.paca.org.uk). The latest GMC panel was thus very clear and supportive regarding Southall’s evidence on the incident of nose bleeding and difficulty breathing; they accepted his opinion as a result of what they heard from the five experts. The panel also dismissed the issue of Southall’s failure to interview the parents, given that he was acting as an informant to the proceedings and not as an instructed expert.

John Bridson, coordinator,
Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA)

References
Dyer C. Southall is allowed to return to child protection work. BMJ 2008;337:a1811. (24 September.)

Many of the misunderstandings of the 2004 panel were cleared up by the five new expert witnesses called by Dr Southalls team. Undue weight has been given in the media to Dr Southall’s humility in this hearing, the fact that his opinion about the need to inform the police has not been altered, more it has been reinforced by the passage of time and the arrival of supporting evidence, hasn’t been given the same prominence.

Dr Southall is now able to practice without restriction pending the appeal against the panel’s findings at the Mrs M hearing.

Download the transcripts of days 1 to 6 here (PDF) and days 8 and 9 here (PDF).

Some years ago David Southall watched a TV programme which led to him speaking confidentially to the police about his concerns over the imprisonment of Sally Clark and the safety of the third child.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, and was banned from carrying out clinical child protection work. At this hearing the renewal was opposed by Dr Southall and the sanction duly lifted after further witnesses were heard and supported of Dr Southall’s actions.

PACA and others will provide balance to some of the biased media reporting that has been the norm throughout this sorry saga. PACA will have information to provide.

Read the Outcome of the Fitness to Practise Panel here (PDF.)