The General Medical Council is the professional regulator for doctors, physician associates and anaesthesia associates in the UK. Its concern process is designed for public protection, not ordinary complaint redress.
A strong GMC referral identifies serious or repeated conduct, the evidence and why the concern may represent a current risk. An unresolved GP or hospital complaint does not automatically meet that threshold.
Key points
- Anyone can raise a concern.
- The GMC focuses on serious current and ongoing public-protection concerns.
- Use the provider, ICB and PHSO routes for ordinary NHS complaint resolution.
- The GMC cannot award compensation or require a personal apology.
- Local and GMC processes may sometimes run in parallel.
Role
What the GMC actually does
The GMC regulates doctors, physician associates and anaesthesia associates in the UK. Its concern process protects patients and public confidence by deciding whether a registrant may pose a serious current risk or has seriously failed to meet professional standards.
It is not an appeal body for every GP or hospital complaint. It cannot order a doctor to apologise, provide different treatment, reverse a local decision or compensate the patient.
Threshold
Concerns the GMC says it can usually investigate
- Serious or repeated mistakes in patient care.
- Abuse of professional position, including improper sexual relationships.
- Violence, indecency or sexual assault.
- Serious criminal offences.
- Discrimination against patients, colleagues or others.
- Fraud or dishonesty.
- Health affecting practice or conduct.
- Serious concerns about ability to communicate safely in English.
Outside remit
Concerns that normally belong elsewhere
| Concern | More appropriate starting route |
|---|---|
| Rudeness or poor communication without a wider serious concern | Provider complaint |
| Appointment access and waiting lists | Provider or commissioner complaint |
| Hospital or practice premises | Provider complaint and possibly CQC information |
| Minor clinical error | Provider clinical complaint |
| Disagreement over diagnosis or report | Clinical complaint, second opinion or record route depending on the issue |
| Refund, apology or compensation | Provider, PHSO, contractual or legal route |
Use both routes
When a local complaint and GMC referral may coexist
A serious concern can be raised with the GMC while the provider investigates the care. The two routes ask different questions. The local complaint seeks explanation, remedy and service learning. The GMC assesses public protection and fitness to practise.
Do not tell the GMC merely that the complaint response was unsatisfactory. Identify the professional conduct, evidence, seriousness, repetition and current risk. Tell both bodies about material parallel proceedings where relevant.
Evidence
What to send to the GMC
- Identify the doctor or other GMC-regulated professional as accurately as possible.
- Give a concise chronology of the alleged conduct.
- Attach the primary clinical or documentary evidence rather than an unfiltered file dump.
- Explain the harm, repetition or ongoing public-protection risk.
- Include relevant local findings, employer action or complaint responses.
- Separate facts you witnessed from inference or information reported by someone else.
Process
What may happen after a concern is raised
The GMC first considers whether the concern falls within its remit and threshold. It may seek information, close the matter, refer it locally, investigate or take the case into its fitness-to-practise process. Outcomes can include no action, advice, warnings, undertakings, conditions, suspension or referral for erasure where the legal tests are met.
A decision not to investigate does not prove that the care was acceptable. It may mean the concern does not meet the GMC's regulatory threshold and should be pursued through a different route.
Prepare the referral
Present a regulatory concern, not a second complaint
A referral to the General Medical Council (GMC) should explain why the facts engage that regulator's public-protection role. Start with the alleged conduct or service risk, not the length of the local dispute. Identify the evidence, seriousness, repetition and whether the risk may still be current.
Keep requests for a personal explanation, apology, correction or financial remedy within the complaint or legal route that can provide them. The same evidence can be relevant to both routes, but the question for each decision-maker is different.
- Identify the regulated person or service. Give the name, location, registration details and relevant dates where known.
- State the concern concisely. Describe the act, omission, pattern or risk in neutral language and separate direct knowledge from inference.
- Explain regulatory significance. Connect the facts to safety, fitness to practise, service quality or public confidence rather than ordinary dissatisfaction.
- Attach primary evidence. Use records, decisions and correspondence that establish the concern. Index the documents and avoid an unfiltered file dump.
- Disclose related proceedings. Identify provider complaints, employer investigations, ombudsman work, police involvement or litigation where relevant.
- Protect deadlines elsewhere. Do not assume the regulator will preserve a complaint, ombudsman or court time limit.
After submission
Understand triage, evidence and possible closure
A regulator may seek more information, refer an issue locally, open an investigation or close it at an early stage. Closure does not necessarily mean the reported event did not happen. It may mean the information falls outside the remit, does not meet the regulatory threshold, is too historic to investigate fairly or is better handled by another body.
Read the reasons carefully. If material evidence was missed, identify the document and the point it proves. If the reasons show that the concern is an individual complaint rather than a regulatory matter, return to the provider, commissioner, ombudsman, data or legal route instead of resubmitting the same narrative under a different label.
| If you need | Keep using |
|---|---|
| An explanation, apology or correction | Provider or commissioner complaint |
| Independent review of an eligible unresolved NHS complaint | PHSO |
| Action about serious professional or service risk | The relevant regulator |
| Access to records or data-rights enforcement | Provider data route and, where appropriate, ICO |
| Damages for injury or financial loss | Specialist legal advice and the appropriate civil route |
Referral checklist
Check the file before sending
- The correct regulator and regulated person or service have been identified.
- The opening paragraph explains the regulatory concern in plain language.
- Each important fact has a date and a supporting source.
- The file distinguishes direct evidence, reported information and inference.
- The public-protection or service-safety significance is explained without exaggeration.
- Irrelevant personal and third-party information has been removed or redacted.
- Parallel routes, decisions and imminent deadlines are disclosed.
- The submission asks only for action within the regulator's powers.
Official sources
Check the current rules behind this guide
This guide focuses on England. Health complaint structures, regulators and ombudsmen differ elsewhere in the UK. Official contacts, procedures and service responsibilities can change, so check the live source before relying on a deadline or route.