Unprofessional behaviour of junior doctors: a retrospective analysis of outcomes by the Singapore Medical Council disciplinary tribunals

INTRODUCTION@#This is a retrospective analysis of outcomes by Singapore Medical Council (SMC) disciplinary tribunals in cases involving junior doctors. We aimed to classify the types of unprofessional behaviour and consider appropriate measures for remediation and prevention.@*METHODS@#SMC's annual reports from 1979 to 2017 and published grounds of decision from 2008 to 2017 were examined using two screening levels to identify cases involving junior doctors. Cases were sorted into five outcome categories: (a) professional misconduct; (b) fraud and dishonesty; (c) defect in character; (d) disrepute to the profession; and (e) acquitted.@*RESULTS@#A total of 317 cases were identified, of which 13 (4.1%) involved junior doctors: 4 (30.8%) cases involved professional misconduct, 4 (30.8%) cases involved fraud and dishonesty, 3 (23.1%) cases saw an acquittal, and one case each involved defect in character and disrepute to the profession. The four cases of professional misconduct highlight the need to differentiate medical errors due to systems factors from those due to individual culpability, by applying analytical tools such as root cause analysis and Unsafe Act Algorithms. Disciplining the individual alone does not help prevent the recurrence of similar medical errors. We found that fraud and dishonesty was an important category of unprofessional behaviour among junior doctors.@*CONCLUSION@#While the frequency of unprofessional behaviour among junior doctors, as determined by the SMC disciplinary tribunal, is low (4.1%), this study highlights that complaints against medical doctors often involve systems issues and individual factors. Unprofessional behaviours related to fraud and dishonesty need special attention in medical school.

Legal medicine: assessing mental capacity and writing medical reports for deputy applications

Medical reports are required to support court applications to appoint a deputy to make decisions on behalf of a person who has lost mental capacity. The doctor writing such a medical report needs to be able to systematically assess the mental capacity of the person in question, in order to gather the necessary evidence for the court to make a decision. If the medical report is not adequate, the application will be rejected and the appointment of the deputy delayed. This article sets out best practices for performing the assessment and writing the medical report, common errors, and issues of concern.