General Medical Council | MPTS

Posted 10 March, re my Subject Access Request (SAR) to the General Medical Council (GMC): 'Over THREE MONTHS and still struggling, for what I have no doubt has involved quite a crowd, to decide how little of my personal data should be disclosed to me! And while I can't wait to see the black pages - that's if they take the trouble to redact instead of simply withholding...'

Seven days later I received a password to access the disclosure bundle - and guess what 😆

 

While there is a huge amount of my data missing, that I can prove quite easily, do they seriously expect me to believe that only FIVE internal emails exist mentioning my name?

In relation to Dr Prashant Jindal's FtP 2022 hearing alone, there has been extensive deliberation concerning me within the organization, and never mind my ears burning, they should have caught fire!*

And given that the GMC monitor my social media sites, surely they take screenshots, as do Optimax and Optical Express 👀

Meanwhile, still waiting for lo-ooong overdue SAR disclosure from the Medical Practioners Tribunal Service.

To be continued...

*Update soon!
#blindedonthehighstreet #stormsasha

While there is a huge amount of my data missing, that I can prove quite easily, do they seriously expect me to believe that only FIVE internal emails exist mentioning my name?

In relation to Dr Prashant Jindal's FtP 2022 hearing alone, there has been extensive deliberation concerning me within the organization, and never mind my ears burning, they should have caught fire!*

And given that the GMC monitor my social media sites, surely they take screenshots, as do Optimax and Optical Express 👀

Meanwhile, still waiting for lo-ooong overdue SAR disclosure from the Medical Practioners Tribunal Service.

To be continued...

*Update soon!
 

3/3
29 February 2023, these emails coincidentally arrived within minutes of each other, four minutes to be exact; and as you can see, the MPTS more open about the fact that they obviously have every intention of heavily redacting my personal data - if even disclosing 👀


No matter what they'd have you believe, the GMC and MPTS are unarguably self regulating, answering to no one, the lack of transparency astounding, while interpreting the ‘balance of interest test’ to suit themselves: ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-gui...interest-conditions/

See my FOI re public interest test and form your own conclusions:

 
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_interest_test_7

 

Over THREE MONTHS and still struggling, for what I have no doubt has involved quite a crowd, to decide how little of my personal data should be disclosed to me! And while I can't wait to see the black pages - that's if they take the trouble to redact instead of simply withholding, my complaints went to the Information Commisioner's Office (ICO) last week.

Meanwhile, I question whether complaints to the Professional Standards Authority are swept under the carpet (another FOI methinks!), but if you’ve had issues with the GMC or mpts, it's worth a try: concerns@professionalstandards.org.uk 
 

As do others I've spoken with (lawyers & doctors), I struggle to accept that the MPTS operates independently from the GMC 👀

'Requests to this body [mpts] are sent to the GMC Freedom of Information team.’
www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/mpts .

30 November 2023, I sent SARs to both GMC and MPTS, receiving this response on 14 December 2023, advising that they were allowed to extend the usual one month to three months, disclosure due by 29 February 2024.

And so I patiently waited…

 

This 3 part thread is in the interests of transparency, a value advertised by the GMC, but unfortunately one that I have yet to witness 👀 www.gmc-uk.org/about/how-we-work/our-values
 

After reading the General Medical Council's latest 'closed without action' letter regarding Dr David Teenan’s fitness to practise, surely no one will disagree that the organisation (registered as a charity!) is #notfitforpurpose 👀

I've highlighted a few notable paragraphs in the scanned pages, and redacted Ms X's name at her request.

Page 9: 'The GMC has opened nine investigations into Mr Teenan’s fitness to practise since 2013. None of those cases resulted in action being taken on Mr Teenan’s registration, although some were closed with advice being provided to the doctor. All nine cases involved concerns that touch on clinical matters like those investigated by the GMC in this case.’

ONLY nine, all involving the same issues, so please tell how many patients eyes and lives must Dr David Teenan damage before these anonymous and incompetent case examiners decide that he should, at the very least, be referred to a FtP tribunal?

He has been (and is currently being) sued by dozens of patients he’s damaged, some actually blinded!*

Claims successfully settled, but always out of court, and I dream of the day OE will actually let another one go to trial, as to their regret they did with Stephanie Holloway’s £569,000 landmark case in 2104, because then the press and media can jump on it without fear of OE’s regular legal threats.

'As his only employer, Optical Express has confirmed that it holds no concerns about Mr Teenan’s fitness to practise.’

No sh*t Sherlock! Otherwise they’d be corroborating the ever increasing number of legal claims against the company and Teenan!

*Unfortunately the majority of people don’t bother to complain to the GMC, not least because they read stories like this and think what's the point!

But it is VERY important that complaints are made to the GMC - and to the General Optical Council, about all negligent surgeons and optoms, whether closed without action or not, because sooner or later this is going to backfire on all not fit for purpose UK regulators!

Please note that as patient advocate, I'm always willing to do this on the victim’s behalf, as I did with Ms X and others. Possibly the reason for the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service & GMC's villification of me re Dr Prashant Jindal’s FtP hearing, because of course these cases cost a lot money to run - as seen in the answers to my FOI Qs 9-12: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/info_re_d...p_h#incoming-2454822

PS: I'm not sure that Dr David Teenan's employment with OE entitles him to be addressed as 'Mr', but happy to be corrected if mistaken.

This topic concerns the GMC - strongly recommended reading
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...actise-hearing#21822

A productive Zoom meeting with John McDonnell this morning, primarily a follow up to Bad Eye Day Lobby (update on the event when I can), and to discuss the GMC legal team’s spurious reason for dropping my evidence from Dr Prashant Jindal's relisted MPTS Fitness to Practice hearing, not forgetting the tribunal panel’s nonsensical excuses for their unprecedented recusal!

Whilst refusing to definitively confirm their unmerited intention to also exclude me from attending the relisted hearing as a member of the public, claiming they haven't yet decided, I have no doubt whatsoever that they plan to make this application to the tribunal on the first morning of the hearing in September, when it's far too late to seek legal advice!

Lawyers have therefore been instructed, and the reason why I won't be continuing with the next chapter of the Twisted Fncks story just yet.

But please be assured, even if it has to wait until October, the shenanigans of ALL parties, desperate to discredit me and the victims, will eventually be exposed.

And I will publish emails collected over many years of my work evidencing why the public should be extremely concerned about the level of protection provided by the not fit for purpose regulators we are lead to believe we can trust!

Update here: www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...actise-hearing#21822

Invited to the General Medical Council annual conference today, where not only was I treated with absolute respect, but those I spoke with interested in what I had to say - a lesson to be learnt by some of the organisations trying to silence me, who are of course scared of me for that very reason

Quite serendipitously, whilst admiring the building’s architecture from the top of a stunning spiral staircase yesterday, I came face to face with General Medical Council (GMC) CEO Charlie Massey as he ascended the stairs.

I recognised him immediately, and when I introduced myself - with a flash of my ID tag, I was surprised when he said that he didn't know who I was, because I'd sent him detailed and lengthy emails, in 2020 and 2021!

He said he hoped that I hadn’t been offended when he hadn’t replied (I told him I was!), because his CE office deals with emails sent to the CEO address, and these are forwarded to the relevant departments to deal with - this explained a lot!

I told him that I had frequently and publicly criticised the GMC, and, like many other people, consider the organisation not fit for purpose. He wasn’t offended, and gave me his complete attention. (Lovely blue eyes!)

We probably talked for about ten minutes, and Charlie was generous with this time, as I'd waylaid him en route to one of the halls for a speech, and his waiting staff were looking anxious, obviously wanting to drag him away, but not daring to interrupt.

I had expected to meet resistance, even hostility, as I did from the The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.*

But to the contrary, I was impressed with Charlie’s willingness to take on board what I said, and his receptiveness to my criticisms.

One of these being my concern that the GMC regularly instructs entirely unsuitable medical experts to report on refractive cases, responsible for so many complaints being closed over the years (mine included), without any action taken against the surgeons, who are free to go on and damage more patients without fear of repercussions.

I quoted a perfect example, pointing out why I believe it was entirely thanks to the diligence of the case examiners that the surgeon concerned was eventually referred to a Fitness to Practise hearing (I promise you'll hear about this very soon!)

Charlie had told me that he doesn’t personally get involved with FtP cases to avoid bias, but I advised that he might want to familiarise himself with this one, as the GMC will be under fire when the press get hold of the history.

In a relatively short time I was able to cover a lot of ground, and am assured that Charlie will keep his word, that he intends to read my emails and look into what we'd discussed.

My job done, I decided that I might as well leave, but kicked myself for not having had a photo taken with him, so I walked back into the main room and waited until he came out of the hall…

Dashing past me Charlie readily agreed, but said after he'd visited the little boys room, explaining that because he’d stopped to talk to me earlier he hadn’t had time before he went into the hall - ouch!



It really was a pleasure to meet Charlie Massey, and I hope that, like the GOC are doing, the GMC will reconsider their handling of refractive complaints in the future.

*Having been appointed lay adviser to the Refractive Surgery Standards Working Group in 2016, I was subsequently kicked off the panel at the behest of Optical Express boss David Moulsdale, his fellow Scot Professor Carrie MacEwen then RCOphth president, who yesterday tried to ignore me, but as she walked by, unable to avoid acknowledging my sweet smile with people looking on, she bared her teeth in the vague semblance of a smile (grimace?).
#blindedonthehighstreet #stormsasha

Craig Mellor initially went to Optical Express for laser eye surgery, and I would highly recommend that you read his story (especially if STILL considering surgery at this point!), because it is appalling how this led to him undergoing lens exchange surgery (and more) to fix the problems caused by the primary laser surgery: a total of EIGHT operations that subsequently left him with irreparably damaged eyes, and even worse vision problems.*
www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...p/true-stories/craig

Drs Jan Venter and Andre Oberholster were investigated by the GMC, and though there were in fact three surgeons responsible for butchering Craig’s eyes, the GMC refused to investigate his complaint against Stefan Klopper (first surgeon) because it was over the 5 year time limit when Craig eventually submitted his complaints to the organisation.

I struggle to accept this 5 years limitation, not only because OE kept Craig in their system for so long before telling him there was nothing more to be done, but because just as the United Kingdom has no statute of limitations for criminal offences, and, dependent on individual circumstances, I think the same approach should be considered by both the GMC and GOC.

Meanwhile, I remain concerned with the oft repeated statements I have read in so many GMC instructed expert reports over the years (not just those from Ian Simmons).

When exactly does the 'overall care' that 'falls below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Ophthalmologist' become 'seriously below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Ophthalmologist' and warrant action? (The same wording used in both reports by Ian Simmons for Jan Venter and Andre Oberholster.)

I also cringe at the term 'reasonably competent ', as I'd hope that anyone who operates on me - for anything, including eyes - to be 'highly competent'!

Stephanie Holloway's complaint to the GMC had been closed prior to her landmark court victory in 2014 (thanks to the Patient Advisor Flow proving she was telling the truth about her patient pathway, provided in a bundle of OE documents posted to me by an anonymous insider - to whom I am forever grateful!), but her case was reopened after Dr Joanna McGraw was found negligent.

However, the GMC's final decision didn’t even include a warning ffs!



As for: 'Steps have been taken to improve this process’, tell that to the countless thousands of OE patients who've experienced, and continue to experience, the same lack of informed consent since 2014, many in litigation based on this issue!!

It is also relatively recently that the GMC refuse to disclose the names of their instructed medicolegal experts to complainants once a case is closed, as they did to Craig, and whilst I accept that the names should not be disclosed during the course of the investigation, I see no reason why this info should not be disclosed once closed.

There is a total lack of transparency by not doing so, and allows potential conflict of interests to go unchecked.

For example, as I wrote to the GMC’s CEO Charlie Massey:
'It could also be deemed a conflict of interest for Dr Simmons to have been involved in Mr Mellor's cases given his close working relationship with Dr Andrew Morrell, the medical expert instructed by Optical Express for the very same cases (settled out of court in Mr Mellor's favour).'

I repeat my question, who amongst you considers the GMC fit for purpose - or in need of a serious overhaul?

NB: I intend to post some of these reports in due course. And whilst there is much more to be told about the GMC, I’ll save it for another day.

*Craig is far from a rarity, some people having had a greater number of ‘enhancement’ ops in futile efforts to repair the problems, eyes removed, etc…

#blindedonthehighstreet

All UK trained ophthalmologists prior to 2016 are proficient in cataract surgery. Cataract surgery is a foundation, a core, of an ophthalmologist’s work. Refractive surgery however, may include cataract surgery but it is only one aspect.

Asking someone to take “cataract surgery” off their biography because they are not a subspecialty trained refractive surgeon, just shows a lack of understanding of the subspecialties and training required to be an ophthalmologist.

Respectfully, do not challenge a person’s qualifications or experience if you do not understand it yourself. By trying to alienate those trying to help your cause.
——————————
admin: To understand my criticism, I ‘respectfully’ suggest that you read my post again, not least Ian Simmons’ own response, the point of which you appear to have missed.

You have chosen to post anonymously, with no reference to your own qualifications, and as you have not contacted me directly, hiding behind your keyboard, obviously not amongst the increasing number of ophthalmologists who actively help both my [strike]cause[/strike] campaign and work as a patient advocate, in agreement re the GMC’s continued inappropriate choice of experts.

A wild guess presumes you to be one of these experts