CHRE. Council of Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. An ineffective super-regulator

Silencing Complaints Against the GMC

Long ago, Dr David Roberts wrote a piece called " A Load of Crap".

He quotes

"CHRE Chairman Jane Wesson said: “We have been established as a lean organisation that has a clear mandate to improve the quality of regulation in the healthcare sector and act as the guardian of public interest.

“It is a challenging role and I am delighted by the progress we have made in a short period of time. Our aim is to help regulators improve and become more responsive to the public’s expectations. I believe we are now well placed to build upon the significant changes that have already been implemented, support the regulators in their drive to implement good practice and increase their effectiveness in protecting the public.”

Many years later, we find that Dr Robert's sentiments were not wrong. This organisation was originally called CHRP. It was a ill thought out name because everyone in the medical profession dubbed it CRAP. Even Arpad Toth of GMC v Toth fame dubbed it Crap. The body infamously allowed David Jarman to "jump" off the register by citing a little known condition called " anxiety related to the GMC". So, its pet name stuck to it and it is still dubbed Crap for obvious reasons.

Following this embarassing name, the organisation decided to rebrand itself into CHRE. Sadly their functions did not change. On the year of its inception we all spotted that those who worked in the GMC started to work for the CHRE. One such boggle eyed official went from stuffing up cases at the GMC to the CHRE. Her name was Isabel Nisbet. One has to remember the GMC was heavily criticised for his malfunctioning environment in the 5th Report of the Shipman Inquiry. It was criticised by Isobel Allen and yet the CHRE failed to robustly investigate its performance.

We then move onto one Michael Andrews of the CHRE. This is what the CHRE website says on him. These sentences are quite important because Mr Andrews and his subordinates have a habit of brushing all complaints against the GMC away by misleading them all on what the CHRE can actually do.

So Michael himself tells us what they can do here.

"Michael Andrews manages the Scrutiny and Quality Team. The Scrutiny and Quality team is responsible for scrutinising the work of the regulatory bodies. They do this through the performance review, reviewing final fitness to practice decisions, auditing the initial stages of the fitness to practise process and consideration of complaints about regulators. Through this work, they identify and share good practice amongst the regulators.

Mike Andrews has previously worked in the Fitness to Practise Directorate of the General Medical Council, as well as at the Office for Standards in Education and the Home Office."

One of the main complaints has been that the CHRE has told everyone that they cannot act on their complaints by way of considering the wider aspect of the GMC. Over the years, multiple complaints have been made to the GMC which have never been acted on. We have asked the questions "why"?

The Legislation that covers the CHRE is listed here. I refer to the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002

I specifically refer to Section 26

1) Except as mentioned in subsections (3) to (6), the Council may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.

(2) The Council may, for example, do any of the following—

(a) investigate, and report on, the performance by each regulatory body of its functions,

(b) where a regulatory body performs functions corresponding to those of another body (including another regulatory body), investigate and report on how the performance of such functions by the bodies in question compares,

(c) recommend to a regulatory body changes to the way in which it performs any of its functions.

It is therefore crystal clear that the CHRE can actually take some action. Indeed, as you can see from the NMC Report, they did take a lot of action. They have thoroughly investigated the NMC and found they are inadequate and inconsistent. The CHRE though fails to move on the General Medical Council. Vast array of excuses are made when members of the public and doctors raise concerns with them. These excuses are essentially without basis and just a means of discarding complaints.

It is though interesting that the man in charge of scrutising the General Medical Council used to work for them in the past. Perhaps this misguided loyalty to his previous employer still continues. This prior involvement naturally has some impact in his decision making process. There is a recent press release stating that he is due to go onto work at the General Social Care Council. Perhaps then he will return to the CHRE and ensure that the GSCC is not held accountable as well. So essentially, Michael Andrews has served the General Medical Council well as his last report on the GMC was a glowing one.

So we can conclude that the CHRE is far from independent. It has now developed the habit of shifting away complaints about the General Medical Council so that this organization escapes scrutiny. The irony is that this super regulator was set up after the Bristol Inquiry but yet can be seen to ignore legitimate concerns about the safety of patients, maladministration by the General Medical Council and misfeasance in public office.

Their Chief Executive' initial aim was

"Our aim is to help regulators improve and become more responsive to the public’s expectations."

We note that this super regulator has failed in its aims.

Anyhow, this does not deter any of us. We suggest that everyone who has a concern about the GMC should email them their concerns. Please also copy us in to the complaint so we can monitor the responses provided by the CHRE. All their contacts are listed here. Of course, it appears to be beyond the CHRE to move with the times and ask for legislation to be altered so they do have the powers to ensure the GMC behaves itself.