finding of impairment

finding of impairment

A formal decision by a Fitness to Practise Panel—appointed by the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) to hear a case regarding a doctor's ability (fitness) to practise without restrictio—that the alleged facts have been proved, and that the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired.
References in periodicals archive ?
The panel has no doubt that any well-balanced and reasonably well-informed member of the public would justifiably conclude that a finding of impairment of your fitness to practise was required in order to uphold proper professional standards.
Although the panel was of the view that you were regretful, remorseful and had a degree of insight into the seriousness of this, the wider public interest can only be served by a finding of impairment.
theliver Panel chair John Weedon said: "[The panel] was satisfied that a member of the public in full knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and being aware of the insight and remediation demonstrated, would not consider a finding of impairment necessary to uphold the reputation of the profession and maintain proper standards.
The panel has determined that, although the PCC considered your actions serious in 2004, the panel today, in the light of the evidence given to it by eminent paediatricians and your expressions of regret and remorse, considers that a finding of impairment is not justified.
Public interest can only be saved by a finding of impairment.
It concluded that public confidence in the dental profession and the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this case.
In light of the nature and seriousness of Mrs Rudkin's misconduct, the panel concluded that the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment of fitness to practise were not made in the circumstances of this case," the NMC report said.
In these circumstances, the panel is of the view that public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process would be undermined if a finding of impairment wasn't made.
The panel decided the incidents were not serious enough to warrant a fresh finding of impairment or to extend the doctor's conditions.