Some 1,000 doctors have written to the Professional Standards Authority in anger at the “seriously alarming” decision to stop a GP because of her request for a laptop, suggesting it was an example of unfair treatment of medical professionals from minority ethnic backgrounds.
Dr. Manjula Arora, an overseas trained Indian physician with 30 years of exemplary service, was referred to the General Medical Council (GMC) by Mastercall Healthcare, a Stockport-based social enterprise organization providing a range of outpatient health services. in the north-west of England, following the December 2019 incident.
She told the IT department that the medical director and former CEO of Mastercall – referred to as “Dr B” in tribunal documents – had “promised” her a laptop when they were available.
However, the Office of the Tribunal for Medical Practitioners (MPTS) heard that an email from Dr. B said: “We do not have laptops at the moment, but I will note your interest when the next launch takes place.
The tribunal found that when Dr. Arora told “Mr. C” – the digital services manager at Mastercall – she was “promised” a laptop, she knew that Dr. B had not made such a promise, even if she interprets his email as generally a positive response to her request for a laptop.
The MPTS statement states: “The Tribunal again concluded that Dr. Arora did not intend to be dishonest and that she did not intend to deceive Mr C. Rather, she exaggerated her position on the use of one. inappropriate word. Nevertheless, he determined that in the specific use of this single word in this one case it was dishonest.
Carl Hargan, representing GMC, told the tribunal that Dr. Arora, who joined Mastercall as an independent GP in 2010, had “damaged the reputation of the medical profession”, “violated a fundamental principle of the profession” and that “her integrity could not be relied upon. ”
The MPTS removed Dr Arora for 28 days for “dishonesty”, claiming that she had “exaggerated” her allegations and, as a result, found that her fitness to practice had been violated.
The mass lobbying organization Doctors’ Association UK said it had “serious concerns” about the case, saying the issue should have been resolved locally and never concerned the GMC.
DAUK and BAPIO (British Association of Indian Physicians) have written to PSA CEO Alan Klemp asking him to investigate the GMC’s work with the case – and an overview of Black’s FTP cases referred to him. , Asian and minority ethnic doctors. About 1,000 doctors have already signed the letter of support.
DAUK President Dr. Jenny Vaughn told me: “We are very concerned because Dr. Arora is a trained doctor from India and we know that the share of IMG doctors (international medical graduates) is referred to the GMC and therefore are sanctioned or punished at times exceeding that found in the general population of doctors in the United Kingdom.
“This case, in conjunction with a number of previous related cases, raises the specter of disproportionate unfair treatment of black, Asian and minority ethnic medical populations. We believe that this cannot be tolerated, and we have called for a serious review of this decision, which we consider unfair.
DAUK also offered to buy a laptop for Dr. Arora as a gesture of goodwill so she could keep working. Dr Vaughn said: “We believe Mastercall should have made this offer in the first place.
More than a quarter (28%) of GPs abroad have no legal representation in FTP hearings and are more likely to face “tougher sanctions” as a result, a compensation organization said this month. This compares with 21% for those GPs who have qualified in the UK.
Earlier this year, doctors of different ethnic backgrounds said they considered racism a problem in the NHS. In a study by the British Medical Association (BMA) among more than 2,000 doctors and medical students, just over 90 per cent of blacks and Asian respondents, 73 per cent of mixed ethnicities and 64 per cent of white respondents said they believed in racism in the medical profession. it was a problem.
The BMA said it was “confused and deeply concerned” about the case, noting that doctors who are qualified abroad are referred to the GMC by three times the percentage of doctors trained in the UK.
Dr Chaand Nagpol, chairman of the BMA’s council, said: “By his own admission, the tribunal’s decision is based on the interpretation of a single word related to the provision of a laptop in an otherwise flawless career as a doctor.
“It is incomprehensible that stopping this doctor from caring for patients for a month, at a time of unprecedented pressure from the NHS, is in the public interest.
Dr Nagpol called for an “independent root and branch assessment” of decision-making procedures on the suitability of GMCs, starting with the referral process itself.
Dr. Arora is thought to be considering appealing her removal. If Dr. Arora files a complaint, she will remain free to practice indefinitely until the outcome of the appeal is known.
BAPIO President Dr JS Bamrah called the whole incident “really embarrassing”.
He said: “This is an illustration of the systemic bias and excessive regulatory burden that belittles doctors, especially those from minority and immigrant groups. The GMC remains deaf and continues its systematic persecution, giving institutions the right to use regulatory procedures criminally.
“The GP’s career is now polluted after three decades of exemplary service, at a time when we have a severe NHS workforce crisis.”
Michaela Buck, the current CEO of Mastercall, said: “Dr. Arora was not an employee of Mastercall. Dr. Arora has worked as a self-employed contractor and has not worked for Mastercall since August 2020.
She said Mastercall was unable to make further comments on Dr. Arora’s case without her explicit consent and made further inquiries to the GMC.
A GMC spokesman said: “The doctor’s employer has raised a number of concerns about honesty. Our experts cannot resolve factual disputes, so when such allegations are disputed, it is appropriate for the doctor to be able to give an account of the events at a full hearing.
“After examining all the evidence, the tribunal found that the doctor was dishonest and that her ability to practice had been violated. In view of this finding and the doctor’s statements, the tribunal determined that the minimum sanction required was short removal.
Add Comment