Fitness to Practise PanelL Panellist selection

Our ref: F09/2363/NA

Dear Mr Thackeray

Information Request

Thank you for your email of 29 June 2009 in which you request information
in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA).

We will consider your request and you will normally receive the
information you seek within the 20 working day limit set by the FOIA.

The FOIA lists a number of exemptions that may prevent the release of
part, or all, of the information that you have requested. We will make an
assessment of the requested information and if it is subject to an
exemption you will be informed of this, together with details of your
right of appeal.

Your request has been allocated to Noela Almeida. If you have any queries
concerning your request you can contact Ms Almeida on 0161 923 6305 or
email [email address]

Yours sincerely

Janet Maclean

Information Access Team Administrator

0161 923 6324

[email address]

show quoted sections

Our ref: IAT/F09/2363/NA

Dear Mr Thackeray

Thank you for your email dated 29 June 2009 in which you ask for further
information about GMC empanelment procedures. Your request has now been
considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

1. For the original 2004 hearing all panellists would be informed of all
long hearings (Dr Cosgrove's came into this category). The information
provided to all panellists would have included dates, hearing location,
the doctors' name, general geographical location and specialty. This basic
information was to allow panellists to identify potential conflicts of
interest and therefore make themselves unavailable for those hearings.
This information was provided routinely every 6 months, with updates as
required. Panellists indicated their availability and were then allocated
to hearings by the empanelment team to ensure a quorate and diverse
Panel. Each panellist would have had ample opportunity to advise that
they did not wish to sit on a particular Panel after they had been
allocated to it.

For the review hearing in 2005, panellists would have provided their
availability for specific weeks and a defined number (according to the
number of hearings each week, ensuring quorate and diverse Panels could be
assembled) would be asked to keep that availability. Details of the
specific cases they would be hearing would be provided to panellists about
2/3 weeks prior to the hearing.

2. As outlined in the procedures above, the allocation of panellists to
specific cases was done on the basis of identifying available panellists
and then ensuring a quorate and diverse Panel. This was done by
Adjudication Co-ordinators, with no other input from panellists apart from
confirming their availability.

I hope this information is useful to you. If you have any concerns
regarding the handling of this request please do not hesitate to contact
me.

Yours sincerely

Julian Graves

Information Access Manager

General Medical Council

0161 923 6351

[1][email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Thackeray

Apologies for my oversight and for the delay in responding.

As I explained in my answer to 1 below, all prospective panellists would
have been provided with basic information on the case.

The identity of the complainant would not have been explicitly
provided within the panellist allocation process.

Yours sincerely

Julian Graves
Information Access Manager
Generla Medical Council

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Thackeray

The identity of the complainant would not have been explicitly provided
to the panellists. Prior to the hearing the appointed panellists would
have been provided with an agenda detailing the allegations. It would
not have been possible to identify the complainant from this information
alone.

Yours sincerely

Julian Graves
Information Access Manager
General Medical Council

show quoted sections