Occupational physicians' perceptions and impact of 2009 GMC consent guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the General Medical Council (GMC) updated its guidance on consent, introducing a new statement that employees should be offered the opportunity to view reports, before the reports are sent to the employer. AIMS: To investigate the effects of this change on the perceptions and practice of occupational physicians. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of UK occupational physicians via the Society of Occupational Medicine e-newsletter, seeking their opinions of the anticipated and actual effects of the guidance on employers, employees, occupational physicians and occupational health services. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-five completed questionnaires were returned (estimated response rate 30%). Respondents included 25% of accredited UK specialists. Some reported improved standards and greater transparency, however the change was generally perceived as unfavourable, with employee and employer losses: 50% reported delay providing timely advice to employers and 35% reported delays in employees returning to work. Significant variation in practice and increased costs were reported, with variable effects on different services. Difficulties in areas such as pensions and health surveillance were reported. Some occupational physicians had moved to instant reporting; others had moved away from this to allow more care with wording of reports. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant variations in practice between occupational physicians and concerns of employee and employer losses as a result of changes to the GMC consent guidance. Clearer guidance on practical implementation was desired. The background ethical reasoning should be stated so that the parameters of the guidance are delineated and its reach should be clarified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".