In-house prosecution unit, stricter timelines proposed to ensure consistent, faster outcomes for complaints against doctors
The workgroup has conducted over 25 engagement sessions and townhalls at public and private hospitals, as well as professional bodies, and sought the views of over 1,000 doctors.
SINGAPORE — The workgroup tasked to review the disciplinary process of the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), among other things, has recommended the setting up of an in-house unit to prosecute doctors suspected of errant practices instead of having the council engage private law firms.
The proposed move is aimed at improving the consistency of outcomes, said Senior Minister of State (Health and Law) Edwin Tong on Friday (Sept 13).
Speaking at a medical conference held at the Carlton Hotel, Mr Tong gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations of the workgroup, which was convened in March to conduct a review of how the medical concept of “informed consent” is taken and the SMC’s disciplinary processes. In May, Mr Tong had provided an update on proposals being considered by the workgroup.
As part of its draft recommendations, the 12-member workgroup also proposes the setting up of a new inquiry committee — to perform a “fast triage” of complaints within three weeks and decide if a complaint filed against a doctor requires investigation — as well as a disciplinary commission, which would be independent of the SMC. These efforts are aimed at professionalising the disciplinary process, Mr Tong said.
Noting the unhealthy impression that the disciplinary tribunal was affiliated to SMC, Mr Tong said the new disciplinary commission will be responsible for constituting each disciplinary tribunal and training the members of the disciplinary tribunal, inquiry committee and complaint committee.
Currently, the complaint committee evaluates complaints reported to the SMC. If it finds the complaint valid, it will refer the case to the SMC’s disciplinary tribunal, which will summon the doctor to a hearing. While the complaint committee has a timeline of three months, this is frequently extended.
Mr Tong said that there would be “stricter control” over timelines for disciplinary cases to be heard. For instance, if the complaint committee cannot complete its work within three months, it can receive only one extension from SMC, following which it must apply to the courts for an extension of timelines.
Currently, there is no limit on the number of extensions the complaint committee may receive.
Mr Tong said that a good portion of complaints received by the SMC were related to unhappiness about the service received by patients and could be due to misunderstanding and miscommunication between patients and doctors.
Such cases could be resolved by mediation so that an amicable outcome can be achieved by both parties, he noted. SMC is currently in discussion with the Singapore Mediation Centre to enhance cooperation between both organisations so that more complaints could be resolved through mediation.
Moving forward, Mr Tong said that the workgroup would continue to consult the medical profession on these preliminary ideas and put forth its final recommendations to the Ministry of Health for review at the end of this year.
The workgroup was set up after judgments against orthopaedic surgeon Lim Lian Arn and psychiatrist Soo Shuenn Chiang triggered heated debate within the medical fraternity here, with thousands petitioning against the harshness of the hefty fines imposed.
Both cases broadly involved questions of informed consent — the sometimes complex set of rules relating to what doctors have to do to get permission to treat patients.
To date, the workgroup has conducted over 25 engagement sessions and townhalls at public and private hospitals, as well as professional bodies, and sought the views of over 1,000 doctors.
