QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF DR KRISHNAMURTHY||(CLAIMANT)|
|THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS S VAUGHAN JONES (instructed by the General Medical Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"I feel that you have now reached the point where it would be beneficial for you to be able to practice skills, particularly consultation skills and audit, in a clinical setting under appropriate supervision."
"I feel that Dr Krishnamurthy has now taken his personal education as far as he could be reasonably expected to do without having the opportunity to develop his practical clinical skills. I am not aware of any former [formal it should be] education research which has been done with doctors in Dr Krishnamurthy's position and I have no direct personal experience of it, so based on my experience as a GP tutor and a trainer of GP registrars.
"My view is that Dr Krishnamurthy should be allowed a period of 6-12 months of supervised practice in which to develop his clinical skills. He should have ready access to a general practitioner with educational skills such as a GP trainer at all times whilst he is consulting. He should also have access to developmental tools such as video consultation and he should have the opportunity to demonstrate his skills at the end of this period to the level required for summative assessment at the end of GP educational training."
"The committee today noted the efforts which you have made so far to improve your performance. Within six weeks of the previous hearing you contacted the Department of Postgraduate Medicine and Dentistry and arranged a meeting with Dr Bailey, Deputy Director of Postgraduate General Practice Education. However, you did not fully implement his advice and in fact did not meet with him again until 11 March 2003.
"Although you have provided some of the evidence that the committee asked you to submit, it does not specifically address the major deficiencies identified in the assessment carried out prior to the previous hearing. Your evidence to the committee indicated that you are still lacking in insight into the serious deficiencies identified in that report. The reality is that you still refuse to accept all the assessment findings. Furthermore, although you devised an educational plan, this does not address your shortcomings and was only prepared relatively recently. The Committee have noted that you have attended a number of courses but in their opinion this was not a serious attempt to address the specific deficiencies found at your assessment, nor did you undertake reflective learning in relation to the courses that you attended, despite being asked to do so by the Postgraduate Dean. The Committee are also concerned that in relation to the other learning experiences which you have documented, there is little evidence that you have regularly kept up-to-date with relevant journals and other reading matter.
"Taking all these matters into account, the Committee consider that you continue to present a risk to patient safety and that it is not sufficient for the protection of the public to impose conditions on your registration. They have therefore decided to direct that your registration be suspended for a further period of 12 months. In reaching this decision the Committee are satisfied that they have weighed your own interests against the safety of the public and the public interest, and that this direction is proportionate to the deficiencies revealed."