1. Home
  2. Parties and representatives
  3. Guidance for tribunals
  4. Tribunal guidance for doctors hearings
  5. Medical practitioners tribunal hearings
  6. Process of decision making at an MPT review hearing
  7. Process of decision making at an MPT review hearing text alternative

Process of decision making at an MPT review hearing text alternative

Stage one: impairment

Step 1: decide if the doctor’s fitness to practise remains impaired

Follow steps 1a and 1b

  • Decide if the doctor poses any current and ongoing risk to public protection and if their fitness to practise remains impaired
  • If impaired, decide which parts of public protection are engaged, and why
  • Give reasons for decision

Step 1a: Consider what has happened since the previous MPT’s decision

  • What was the previous MPT’s assessment of risk and reasons given for it?
  • What new evidence has been received since the previous MPT’s assessment of risk and what impact does it have?
  • What evidence is there of insight and is the doctor’s insight genuine?
  • What evidence is there relating to remediation and has the allegation now been remedied or is it still likely to be repeated?
  • Has the doctor kept their knowledge and skills up to date?
  • Has the risk to public protection that previously required restrictive action in response changed and if so, how?

Step 1b: Make a finding on impairment

  • On the basis of the conclusions reached in step 1a, decide if the doctor poses any current and ongoing risk to public protection and make a finding on impairment
  • If there is no current and ongoing risk to public protection requiring restrictive action in response, make a finding of no impairment
  • If the doctor continues to pose a current and ongoing risk to public protection requiring restrictive action in response, make a finding of impairment, decide which parts of public protection are engaged and state the level of risk (low, medium, high)
  • Give reasons for decision

Stage two: sanction

Step 2: decide what action to take, if any

  • If impaired, consider what sanction is proportionate, i.e. needed but no more than necessary to protect the public
  • Review decision on impairment and consider the level of current and ongoing risk the doctor poses to public protection
  • Refer to sanctions bandings (where available), if required to assist understanding of the current sanction imposed
  • Consider whether there is relevant evidence relating to the impact a certain type of sanction will have and/or relevant references and testimonials and what impact, if any, they have
  • Decide on the type and length of sanction – stand back and check if it is proportionate to meet the level of current and ongoing risk posed to public protection
  • Consider directing a review and, where available, whether an immediate order is needed
  • Give reasons for decisions
Go back to 'Process of decision making at an MPT review hearing'