| Summary: | Abstract Background Outcomes of processes questioning a physician’s ability to practise —e.g. disciplinary or regulatory— may strongly impact their career and provided care. However, it is unclear what factors relate systematically to such outcomes. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we investigate this via multivariate, step-wise, statistical modelling of all 1049 physicians referred for regulatory adjudication at the UK medical tribunal, from June 2012 to May 2017, within a population of 310,659. In order of increasing seriousness, outcomes were: no impairment (of ability to practise), impairment, suspension (of right to practise), or erasure (its loss). This gave adjusted odds ratios (OR) for: age, race, sex, whether physicians first qualified domestically or internationally, area of practice (e.g. GP, specialist), source of initial referral, allegation type, whether physicians attended their outcome hearing, and whether they were legally represented for it. Results There was no systematic association between the seriousness of outcomes and the age, race, sex, domestic/international qualification, or the area of practice of physicians (ORs p≥0.05), except for specialists who tended to receive outcomes milder than suspension or erasure. Crucially, an apparent relationship of outcomes to age (Kruskal-Wallis, p=0.009) or domestic/international qualification (χ 2,p=0.014) disappeared once controlling for hearing attendance (ORs p≥0.05). Both non-attendance and lack of legal representation were consistently related to more serious outcomes (ORs [95% confidence intervals], 5.28 [3.89, 7.18] and 1.87 [1.34, 2.60], respectively, p<0.001). Conclusions All else equal, personal characteristics or first qualification place were unrelated to the seriousness of regulatory outcomes in the UK. Instead, engagement (attendance and legal representation), allegation type, and referral source were importantly associated to outcomes. All this may generalize to other countries and professions.
|
|---|
