Does the new disciplinary framework improve on HC(90) 9?

Clinical Risk

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 11-14

  John Hendy, Q C ^a,b  

^a Institute of Employment Rights   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649886705     PISSN: 13562622     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/cr.2008.080093     Document Type: Article

References (2)

1. The detailed disciplinary procedure set out in these documents was fortified by paragraph 190 of the standard NHS Terms and Conditions of Service for Medical and Dental Staff which gave the staff to whom it applied the right, if dismissed, to appeal to the Secretary of State and claim the dismissal was unfair. If upheld such an appeal would result in reinstatement or redeployment to another NHS Trust (the 'third solution'). Paragraph 190 has also been removed.
2. There is no requirement of agreement by, or even consultation with, the accused doctor in the selection of this panel member, no requirement that he or she is of the same specialty, and no requirement of non-association with the NHS employer (nor any requirement that he or she be on an approved list maintained by, for example, the appropriate Royal College).