Background

Medical student Tomasz organised an elective with a charity that delivered health camps in remote villages. The camps were staffed by doctors from various countries and offered gynaecological surgery to women without regular access to medical care.

During one of the camps, Tomasz observed a hysterectomy performed on an elderly patient by a visiting surgeon. He became concerned about the procedure, and felt it appeared to have been carried out negligently. It also became clear that the patient had not been appropriately informed, and the consent process was not at the standards that would have been expected in accordance with English common law or the statutory requirements of England and Wales.

Tomasz decided to raise his concerns with the charity he was working for, but they didn’t want to investigate. He was left feeling unsure about what he should do and whether he had a duty to escalate the concerns even further – and if so, how far that duty extended.

Allegations

Although Tomasz had not been directly involved in the procedure, he wondered what his responsibilities were as a UK medical student. Should he have taken further steps to raise concerns about patient safety and informed consent? Was he obliged to report the surgeon’s actions to either the GMC, the country’s regulator or his university? And did failing to escalate the matter expose him to professional scrutiny or potential disciplinary action? He needed some advice.

How Medical Protection helped

As a student member of Medical Protection, Tomasz was able to contact them as soon as he returned home from his elective. From his first contact, he was supported by a team of advisors and doctors, who explained what his responsibilities were under GMC guidance and helped him understand the ethics of the situation.

A medicolegal consultant helped him to document his concerns, showing that he had acted with integrity. An adviser then helped him to understand what his obligations were under the GMC’s professional standards when it came to escalating concerns about patient safety.

Medical Protection also made Tomasz aware that if a GMC complaint was made about a failure to escalate concerns, or if the university initiated a disciplinary process, he would have the right to access medicolegal advice and representation to protect his career.

Outcome

No regulatory or disciplinary action was taken against Tomasz and his medical school accepted that he had sought appropriate advice and acted in good faith

Learning points

• Medical students are expected to raise concerns about patient safety, even when working abroad or in unfamiliar systems.
• Understanding local laws is important, but students on an elective still need to think about how their actions align with GMC guidance and the ethical principles from their own country of work.
• It’s essential to have indemnity when carrying out an elective whether at home or overseas, as it provides protection against any potential regulatory or disciplinary action – even if the student was not directly involved in patient care.
• Medical Protection is only ever a phone call away to provide advice on professional responsibilities, help with documenting and record keeping, and offer legal support if needed for GMC or university investigations.