The GMC’s 2026 public confidence study shows the public places significant weight on doctors’, physician associates’ and anaesthesia associates’ behaviour outside clinical settings, with clear expectations about when regulators should step in.
Key findings
-
High importance placed on professional behaviour outside work Eighty‑five per cent of survey respondents said it is important that registrants’ personal conduct aligns with professional standards, even when not directly related to patient care. Only 2% disagreed.
-
Most scenarios triggered moderate or high concern Across both qualitative and quantitative research phases, at least half of participants rated every hypothetical scenario—covering dishonesty, violence, social media activity and criminal behaviour—as moderately or highly concerning.
-
Public views on seriousness and sanctions do not always align Although concern levels generally matched suggested regulatory action, inconsistencies were common. Some respondents recommended no action for scenarios they viewed as highly concerning, while others supported severe sanctions for issues they considered low concern.
-
Strong preference for case‑by‑case judgement Participants repeatedly asked for more context before deciding on appropriate action, emphasising that circumstances—such as intent, impact and personal factors—should shape the GMC’s response.
-
Warnings seen as the most appropriate sanction in many cases Even in scenarios generating high concern, warnings were often the preferred outcome. The public viewed them as proportionate where behaviour significantly departs from standards but does not require restricting practice.
-
Expectation of intermediate sanctions in some cases Although the GMC rarely uses conditions in non‑clinical matters, participants felt some situations warranted measures between a warning and suspension, such as monitoring or retraining.
-
Factors influencing severity Repeated behaviour was the strongest driver of support for tougher sanctions. Conversely, one‑off incidents linked to personal difficulties—such as bereavement—were seen as grounds for leniency.
-
Notable differences by sex and age Women expressed greater concern about violence and were more likely to support stronger action. Younger respondents were less troubled by potentially offensive views or dishonesty.
Despite this overall improvement, some groups remain less likely to have had a recent sight test. People facing multiple challenges were more likely to say their last sight test was more than five years ago, at 14% compared with the average of 7%. Those not in work and those on an income of £20,000 or less were also less likely to have had a sight test in the last two years (71% and 76% respectively). 20% of those living in the most deprived areas reported they did not have a sight test or eye examination in the past two years.
Cost is still putting people off seeking eye care. Among people who had felt uncomfortable about visiting an opticians/optometrist practice, the biggest concern was the cost of glasses or contact lenses, cited by 21%, followed by the cost of sight tests/eye examinations, cited by 15%.
For those who had not had a sight test/eye examination in the past two years, 24% said this was because of the cost of glasses or contact lenses, while 19% cited the cost of the sight test/eye examination.
Steve Brooker, Director of Regulatory Strategy at the GOC, said:
“It is really encouraging that public confidence in the profession and patient satisfaction with overall experience both increased this year. That reflects the high standards we see across the profession.
But the findings also show inequalities that the sector needs to work hard to correct. People on lower incomes, living in deprived areas, or facing other challenges are less likely to report positive experiences or to have had a recent sight test.
Cost also continues to act as a barrier to accessing eye care for some people, particularly where it affects their ability to have a sight test or obtain the glasses or contact lenses they need. Our thematic review into commercial practices is reviewing transparency of the price of sight tests/eye examinations and eligibility for NHS funded financial support. We will publish our findings later this year.
Our 2025-30 corporate strategy commits us to helping create fairer and more inclusive eye care services. That means working in partnership with others to reduce barriers that can exacerbate health inequalities and contribute to poorer health outcomes. We will keep working with the sector to better understand these differences and help make eye care fairer for everyone.”
Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
Restoration Courses
Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.
Insight & Remediation
Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.
Probity, Ethics & Professionalism
Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.
Recent Comments