1. Home
  2. Parties and representatives
  3. Guidance for tribunals
  4. Tribunal guidance for doctors hearings
  5. Guidance introduction
  6. Protecting the public in specific case types
Guidance introduction

Protecting the public in specific case types

  1. Tribunals will be asked to make decisions based on a wide range of information that is capable of amounting to an allegation of impaired fitness to practise. When making its decision, a tribunal will need to identify how the matter they are considering relates to the professional standards that doctors are expected to meet, assess how serious the matter is, and state, in the context of the decision they are making, what impact any risk posed by the doctor has on each of the three parts of public protection. 

  2. At an interim orders tribunal (IOT) hearing, the IOT is not making findings of fact, resolving disputes of fact, or deciding whether the doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired. However, the seriousness of the matter will be relevant to the IOT’s consideration of whether the information before it suggests that one or more of the parts of the test for imposing an interim order is met. This includes where there is a real and immediate risk to patient safety.  

  3. At an medical practitioners tribunal (MPT) hearing, the seriousness of the facts found proved will form the basis of the MPT’s assessment of current and ongoing risk to public protection. As this informs the MPT’s decision on impairment it is important for the MPT to be clear about which parts of public protection are engaged. 

  4. Where the medical practitioners tribunal (MPT) concludes that a doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired, but they have found that the doctor has significantly departed from the professional standards, the MPT can issue the doctor with a warning. Warnings are issued in the interests of maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding professional standards. They highlight to the wider profession and the public that certain behaviour or poor performance is not acceptable. 

  5. Where the medical practitioners tribunal concludes that a doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired it will need to go on to consider what is a proportionate regulatory response to protect the public. In doing so they will need to have regard to which of the three parts of public protection are engaged.