LMCs represent local area GPs who form part of a PCN (Primary Care Network).  Local Doctors reside on the LMC.  Salaried, locums and sessional GPs are heavily under-represented on the committees.  GP partners are primarily responsible for decision making on the LMC, which is a contentious issue.

I am deeply concerned about the actions and priorities of 1 Local Medical Committee (LMC), which, rather than serving in the best interests of patients, has allowed 

• a Doctor on their committee (who was under several existing serious complaints), to misuse their position as a LMC member, which helped the said Doctor to evade accountability for misconduct, with no apology, or rectification for the complainant

The GP (and surgery), using the LMC as a weapon, served an underhanded, unfair warning letter on a poor vulnerable, upset recipient with genuine complaints/concerns and concerns for other patients, rather than the said Doctor face accountability/consequences for their actions towards said complainant and apologise.  This could happen again with future patients/complainants, should further complaints arise about the same Doctor/surgery - this is unacceptable practice.

• the Doctor on the Committee, to be promoted whilst complaints still ongoing, despite the Chair having been presented with factual evidence/complaints prior to this new role appointment.

Background

• Several existing long-standing serious complaints about 1 specific Doctor in a GP surgery were ongoing.
• The GP surgery put forward the Doctor as a LMC nominee whilst these existing complaints were ongoing/not investigated thoroughly; unaddressed and lay unresolved - that is unacceptable, immoral and unethical. They should have been doing their utmost to resolve the complaints for their patients; consider their well-being and resolve the issues within the Doctor as there were clear prior repeated patterns of poor behaviour and unprofessional conduct from the Doctor - instead they chose to ignore the issue and worsen an already bad situation.  
• The Doctor did not even cite a 'reason' for wanting to join the LMC in the nomimation paper, which is dubious in itself.
• The GP was appointed on the LMC committee.

This is unacceptable.  It also demonstrates poor oversight/scrutiny on nominees by the LMC and how easy it is to be elected - clearly a gap.

As time Progressed

• The LMC were then made aware of the complaints about the Doctor, (once it was discovered they resided on the committee).
• The Chair of the Committee, on receipt of the complaints/evidence, ignored the written evidence/complaints about the Doctor.
• The LMC then promoted the Doctor on the committee to a higher representational rank - that's corruption at its' finest and most unfair on patients/complainants with outstanding tension - naturally, this would fuel further animosity.

Elections of higher ranking LMC members

Higher ranking LMC members are typically elected by and from the newly elected committee members during their first official meeting or AGM following regular election cycles - it is more than likely that these members would have been unaware of the complaints so elected the candidate without proper due consideration.

Constitution of the LMC

All LMCs form constitutions.  In the LMC constitution (available online), under the Suspension clause; a member who:

• Commits any act that, in the opinion of the committee, is of such nature or seriousness that it prejudices the standing as a Committee member
• In the opinion of the Committee brings the committee into disrepute or acts in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the Committee, for the avoidance of doubt this clause shall also apply to the removal or suspension of Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary of the Committee.

This should be strictly adhered to - it would appear this is a matter for this LMC to address, alomg with others as there is a clear departure of integrity, given the evidence already provided and non disclosure to other LMC  members prior to higher election of the contentious Doctor.  

Another LMC in the UK, a GP representative (with a very poor surgery historic overall patient satisfaction online public rating), is as at August 26, now trying to draw collective action at LMC conferences, using the BMA as a platform, trying to cite that 'emailing your GP with complaints' is harassment - clearly they also want to shirk accountability and not deal with the internal issues at the surgery (how patients are being treated; repeated issues unaddressed), which is giving rise to the complaints.  This LMC is even trying to state that asking for a SAR; Subject Access Request (which legally we are all entitled to); being persistent in complaints, threatening regulatory action; sending correspondence is harassment - it isn't.  They fail (and choose not) to see the person/patient is quite clearly upset by something that has gone wrong within their medical care - a normal emotional reaction.  It's a scare tactic deployed by the LMC to cite harassment to try to dissuade you from achieving a rightful remedy.  Naturally, at times, a patient will be very upset and send a lot of data - as it's evidence to illustrate their point; sometimes more comes to light later on.  None of this constitutes harassment.  There is a duty by a surgery to investigate your concerns/complaints, no matter the cost, time or resources yet even then, they try and say you are a 'burden on resources'; creating more upset, frustration and distress.   This is concerning; will induce friction and is a reversal technique, designed to thwart any rightful resolve, accountability or legal recourse.

At times, the complaint handler at a surgery doesn't 'get' what you are saying, sometimes the responsible party/parties won't apologise or there may be conflicts of interests - all inducing increasing frustration to the complainant. 

Often complainants do not get a LRM (Local Resolution Meeting) for dubious reasons, thus fuelling even more frustration for the complainant, thus citing even more contact. 

It isn't harassment; it's HURT. 

A LMC should encourage local resolve/resolutions between a surgery/patient.  It could be therefore argued that LMC involvement within healthcare is DISRUPTIVE, rather than 'representative'.  What does this say about the LMC and LMCs in general?  This petition calls for scrutiny on LMCs; their members; independent oversight on nominee elections and to consider serious patient complaints about their members prior to any election.  

It isn't difficult to see that 'sorry'; demonstrating empathy and accountability; can do a lot to fix matters and put things right.

It is essential that medical governance bodies, like the LMC, maintain the highest standards of accountability and transparency to ensure and promote patient well-being - this should always be the foremost priority.

Imagine being under the care of a medical professional you should trust, only to find that they have exploited their role within the LMC to sidestep rightful scrutiny/accountability under complaints.  It's a betrayal not only to their patients; their well-being; the reputation of their surgery, but to the integrity of the health system/NHS itself.

This isn't just about the oversight of a Doctor; it's about ensuring LMCs across the country are fulfilling their mandate to regulate and guide with impartiality and focus on the welfare of the patients and ensuring Doctors in general, uphold high standards within their role in general practice and within the PCN.

To address this issue, I urge:

1 - Firstly you should look on your local LMC to see if a Doctor at your surgery, whom a complaint is made about, resides on the committee

2 - Raise your concerns with the LMC.  If the LMC is notified of a patient complaint about 1 of their members; a full investigation into the LMC's handling of said patients' complaints, addressed to them about their members and procedural practices (including nominations) should take place - this is alongside your own patient complaints procedure pathway

3 - Obtain your own legal counsel.

In addition, an independent oversight body/the ICB should set in motion over the LMC to ensure:

• adequate scrutiny of nominees on nomination
• mandate it necessary to ask for any patient complaints about the Doctor prior to appointment on the LMC to be presented
• that no 'conflicts of interest' occur during ongoing complaints by patients which affect or could influence the outcomes of any ongoing investigation, due process, or disciplinary actions against said Doctor(s) at a practice.

The LMC must, turn their focus away from Doctors' rights to a level of trying to silence complainants via threats and instead implement transparent processes for reviewing complaints, providing patients with a clear, supportive pathway via local resolution via their GP for airing grievances or reporting misconduct by medical professionals.  They should work alongside a surgery/patient not against patients, intimidating them.

Statistics from reputable sources show that transparent and accountable medical regulatory bodies directly contribute to higher patient satisfaction and trust. Yet, when accountability falters, so does patient confidence, negatively impacting the entire healthcare structure.

The time to take action is now.  Join me in calling for an immediate review and reform of the LMC's processes to ensure every decision made reflects the priority of patient interests above all. Your signature can drive the change needed to protect patients and restore trust in our medical governance.

Please sign and share.