GMC’s Corporate Strategy and Perceptions Tracking Survey results

The Corporate Strategy and Perceptions Tracking Survey 2024 provides a comprehensive insight into stakeholder views of the GMC’s regulatory approach, with a particular emphasis on the fitness to practise processes. Commissioned as part of the GMC’s commitment to being an effective, relevant, and compassionate regulator, the survey was undertaken to track progress on the 2021–2025 corporate strategy and to gauge how key audiences perceive the regulator and its role. The research was conducted in two distinct phases—quantitative and qualitative—engaging with a broad spectrum of groups including doctors, responsible officers, final year medical students, patients and the public, providers, educators, and stakeholders. Throughout both phases, fitness to practise emerged as a critical driver influencing overall confidence in the regulator.

In the quantitative phase, respondents across nearly all groups signalled that their trust in the GMC is closely linked to how fitness to practise concerns are managed. Many participants, notably medical students and practising doctors, expressed that confidence in the regulator significantly hinges on the efficiency, fairness, and proportionality of its fitness to practise investigations. The survey revealed that for patients and the public, perceptions of the GMC were often indirectly shaped by their overall confidence in doctors, suggesting that any perceived shortcomings in fitness to practise processes can have broader implications. Moreover, the quantitative data highlighted persistent concerns about the regulation of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs), although these issues were not as prominent as those surrounding fitness to practise. Overall, the data underscored that fitness to practise is a top-of-mind issue for almost all stakeholder groups, serving as a central element in shaping their overall perception of the GMC.

The qualitative phase reinforced these findings with deeper insights from 38 virtual interviews. Interviewees shared that their confidence in the GMC was linked to how well the regulator met their expectations, particularly regarding patient safety and the maintenance of professional standards. While some participants commended the effectiveness of the registration process, there was notable criticism concerning the fitness to practise investigations. Many expressed concerns about the lengthy procedures, perceived bias, and inadequate communication, all of which contributed to a feeling that the process lacked compassion. Some medical students went further to argue that the GMC should extend its role beyond technical regulation to include more representative functions. These qualitative insights make it clear that the way fitness to practise cases are handled is pivotal in establishing or eroding trust among the medical community and the public.

In response to these ongoing concerns, the GMC has introduced a series of targeted measures aimed at enhancing the fairness, transparency, and overall handling of fitness to practise processes. Key changes include the launch of a new “fitness to practise explained” webpage to demystify procedures, updated guidance allowing for greater discretion in cases involving minor allegations of violence and dishonesty, and the establishment of targets to address the disproportionate referral rates affecting ethnic minority doctors. These initiatives reflect a proactive effort to mitigate the negative perceptions surrounding fitness to practise and to ensure that investigations are both proportionate and compassionate.

Overall, the article makes it clear that fitness to practise processes are central to stakeholders’ perceptions of the GMC. Addressing the issues of bias, lengthy procedures, and communication gaps in these processes is regarded as essential for restoring trust and confidence in the regulator. The GMC’s commitment to reforming its approach highlights the critical balance between upholding high professional standards and ensuring that its regulatory processes are fair, transparent, and sensitive to the impact on those involved.