UK Parliament / Open data

Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010

My Lords, although the principles behind revalidation, which aims to raise confidence in clinical standards, are welcomed, there are concerns over the ways in which the Department of Health plans to implement the process through the responsible officer regulations. There is also concern about the new regulations coming into force in January 2011, given the proposals in the recent health White Paper to abolish structures that were intended to support the role. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the demands of the role outlined in the proposals will require a person of quite exceptional skills and competences. It is assumed that many medical directors will become responsible officers, which will significantly extend their role by extending their responsibility, powers and workload. There is already a marked variation in the abilities of medical directors to investigate performance concerns and implement local disciplinary procedures. The additional duties are likely to be onerous. It is not certain that senior doctors with the necessary professional standing will be willing to take them on, or that it will be possible to find senior doctors with the necessary standing and experience to succeed in this role. It is essential that adequate resource is allocated to support responsible officers and that they are appropriately equipped to carry out their responsibilities. The guidance to the draft regulations emphasises that there must be a ““robust”” medical management infrastructure to support the responsible officer and sufficient delegation of duties to enable the role to be delivered to a high standard. How will this work in practice and how will it be resourced? The draft regulations do not reflect the changes proposed in the White Paper. Reference is made throughout to ““designated bodies””. These include PCTs and SHAs, which are to be abolished by 2013. There is no detail on what structures will support responsible officers, revalidation and other aspects of performance management in primary care after 2013. This makes the decision to press ahead and appoint 975 responsible officers to strengthen systems in structures that are to be abolished difficult to understand. Surely, given the decision to delay revalidation and the uncertainty around the structures that will support performance management, more time is needed to pilot and evaluate the responsible officer system effectively before bringing these measures into force in January.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

722 c1081 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top