Remediation in GMC cases
For the GMC, remediation means the steps a doctor takes to address the concerns raised and reduce the risk of repetition. It sits next to insight, not in place of it. The MPTS guidance says that for a doctor to successfully remediate, it is important they have insight into the allegation.
Everything turns on current impairment. The MPTS guidance is clear that the assessment is not about the risk the doctor posed when the events happened. It is about the risk at the time the decision is made. That is why what you do between the concern being raised and the decision matters so much.
MPTS tribunals now use new guidance for hearings that started on or after 24 November 2025. It asks whether remediation is relevant, measurable and effective, and gives more weight to objective evidence than to a doctor’s own account. A relevant course, applied in practice and evidenced, can be part of remediation. On its own, it is not enough.
Before you start
We are an independent CPD provider, not part of the GMC. No regulator approves remediation courses, and no course can guarantee an outcome. Take advice from your defence organisation, union or solicitor, and agree with them which learning is relevant to your case.
Which course fits your GMC concern
Match your learning to the allegation, and to the part of Good medical practice 2024 it engages. The MPTS guidance now gives specific approaches for case types such as dishonesty, sexual misconduct, discrimination and clinical concerns.
Dishonesty and probity
Dishonesty is one of the specific case types in the MPTS guidance, and honesty runs through Good medical practice. Tribunals look closely at whether you understand why the conduct was dishonest and how it damages trust in doctors. Remediation should show a clear understanding of honesty in records, CVs, research, financial dealings and communication with the GMC itself.
Clinical care and patient safety
Clinical concerns are a separate case type in the MPTS guidance. This is often where remediation can be most concrete: targeted learning, supervised practice and audit. Show what went wrong clinically, the systems and personal factors involved, and the specific safeguards you now use. Pair the course with workplace evidence such as audits or supervisor reports.
Professional boundaries and sexual misconduct
Sexual misconduct is a specific case type and among the most serious. Boundary concerns also include over-familiar messages, social contact with patients and the use of chaperones. A course can help you understand power imbalance and boundary drift, but in serious cases tribunals will expect much more, including insight over time and independent evidence of changed behaviour.
Discrimination and workplace behaviour
Good medical practice 2024 strengthened expectations on respectful, fair and compassionate workplaces and on tackling discrimination, and discrimination is a specific case type in the MPTS guidance. Remediation should show you understand the impact of your words or behaviour on colleagues and patients, and what you now do differently in team settings.
Communication and complaints
Many referrals start with a breakdown in communication with a patient or family. Show that you understand how the interaction felt from the other side, how you now explain risks and options, and how you respond when someone is unhappy. A clear account of a changed approach, confirmed by colleagues, carries weight.
Openness when things go wrong
Failing to be open with patients after an error, or failing to cooperate with an investigation, can turn a clinical incident into a conduct case. Remediation should show you understand the professional duty of candour, how to apologise and explain, and how to report and learn from incidents. Reflect on what stopped you being open at the time.
Confidentiality and records
Accessing records without a clinical reason, sharing information inappropriately or poor documentation all engage Good medical practice. Show that you understand the legal and ethical basis for confidentiality, when disclosure is justified, and what good contemporaneous records look like in your specialty. Explain how you now check access is justified.
General professionalism and standards
Where the concern is broad, such as repeated lapses or a pattern of behaviour, start with the standards themselves. Show that you have re-read Good medical practice 2024 and can explain, in your own words, which duties were engaged and how your practice now meets them. Then add targeted learning.
How the GMC fitness to practise process works
Each stage below has its own decision maker and its own chance to put evidence of insight and remediation forward. Take advice from your medical defence organisation before you respond at any stage.
- 1
Provisional enquiries
The GMC describes a provisional enquiry as a limited, initial enquiry at the outset of the process which helps it decide whether to open an investigation. If the enquiry shows an investigation is not needed, the concern can be closed. If you are told about a provisional enquiry, this is a good time to start reflecting honestly on what happened, even before you know whether a full investigation will follow.
- 2
Investigation
If an investigation is opened, the GMC gathers evidence such as medical records, witness statements and expert reports. You are told about the concerns and given the opportunity to comment. You are invited to provide evidence of insight and remediation, but whether you do and in what form is your decision. Relevant learning, a reflective statement and supervisor reports can all be put forward with advice from your defence organisation.
- 3
Case examiners’ decision
At the end of the investigation, two case examiners, one medical and one non-medical, review the evidence. They ask whether there is a realistic prospect of establishing that your fitness to practise is impaired to a degree justifying action on your registration. They can close the case, issue a warning, agree undertakings with you, or refer the case to a medical practitioners tribunal. If they disagree, the Investigation Committee decides.
- 4
Interim orders tribunal (at any point)
If the GMC thinks your practice may need restricting while the investigation continues, it can refer you to an interim orders tribunal (IOT) run by the MPTS. An IOT does not decide whether the allegations are true. It can suspend you or impose conditions for up to 18 months, with reviews within six months and then at intervals of no more than six months.
- 5
Medical practitioners tribunal: facts and impairment
At an MPT hearing the tribunal first decides the facts on the balance of probabilities. It then decides impairment in steps: the legal basis, where the allegation sits on the spectrum of seriousness, relevant context, how you have responded to the allegations, and current risk to public protection. Your insight and remediation evidence is weighed at the stage on how you have responded.
- 6
Sanction and warning
If impairment is found, the tribunal considers outcomes starting with the least restrictive: take no action, conditions on your registration for up to three years, suspension for up to 12 months, or erasure. Taking no action may be proportionate where undertakings agreed between the GMC and the doctor are enough to protect the public. Separately, the tribunal decides whether a warning is required.
- 7
Review hearings
When conditions or a suspension are imposed, the tribunal usually directs a review before the order ends. At review, the MPT looks at what has happened since the last decision: whether your insight is genuine, whether the concern has been remedied or is still likely to be repeated, and whether you have kept your knowledge and skills up to date.
What GMC case examiners and MPTS tribunals look for
The case examiners’ decision guidance and the MPTS guidance for tribunals use slightly different language, but they look for the same things. These five points come up again and again.
Genuine insight
The MPTS guidance says that to show genuine insight a doctor needs to show they understand what happened and accept how they could have acted differently. That includes understanding the impact, or potential impact, on patients, colleagues and public trust, showing empathy for anyone affected, for example by apologising, and taking steps to remediate. Insight is usually shown in your own statement or reflective material, so the quality of your writing matters.
Relevant remediation
Tribunals ask whether the steps you have taken directly address the concern. A probity course does little for a prescribing error, and a general ethics course does little for a boundaries case. The guidance lists training, supervision, coaching and mentoring relevant to the matters raised, and attending courses relevant to the nature of the matters raised while showing that the learning has been applied. Explain in your statement why you chose each piece of learning and how it connects to the allegation.
Objective evidence, not self-certification
The MPTS guidance says objective evidence is likely to carry more weight than personal statements. Certificates, CPD records, audit results and reports from supervising professionals show what you have done. Your reflective statement then explains what you learned from it. Ask for reports early, as supervisors need time to observe your practice before they can comment meaningfully.
Learning applied in practice
Measurable and effective are the key words. The tribunal wants to see that your practice has actually changed, not just that you attended something. Describe the specific changes you have made since the concern, how long they have been in place, and who can confirm them. An appraisal entry or a supervisor’s report that refers to the changed behaviour is far stronger than a list of certificates alone. Keep the evidence dated.
Current risk
Every decision maker is looking at risk now, not risk then. The MPTS guidance says that where a doctor can show they have taken relevant steps which have addressed and successfully reduced any risk of repetition and harm, it is less likely the tribunal will need to act solely to protect patients. Public confidence and professional standards still count, especially in the most serious cases. Your evidence should speak to both.
Recommended GMC remediation courses
All 19Each course is self-paced and online. You get scenario-based questions with an 80% pass mark, a structured reflective account and a CPD certificate showing your name, the course title and the CPD hours.
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
A Core Course on Regulation, Current Impairment and Professional Response in the United Kingdom
Professionalism and Professional Standards for Doctors
Good Medical Practice, Revalidation and Professional Conduct in UK Medicine
Ethics and Ethical Standards for Doctors
Principles, GMC Guidance and Professional Conduct in Medical Practice
Probity for Healthcare Professionals
Honesty, Integrity, and Trust in Professional Practice
Ethical Boundaries with Patients and Colleagues
Recognising, Maintaining and Restoring Professional Limits
Ensuring Clinical Competence and Patient Safety for Healthcare Professionals
Competence, Safety, and Continuous Development in Practice
Ensuring Effective Communication as Healthcare Professionals
Clear, Respectful and Patient-Centred Communication in Practice
Duty of Candour in Healthcare Practice
Being Open and Honest When Things Go Wrong
Professionalism in Documentation for Healthcare Professionals
Accuracy, Integrity and Accountability in Clinical and Non-Clinical Records
Building your GMC remediation bundle
Think of your bundle as proof, not promises. Each item should link back to the allegation. Agree the final contents with your defence organisation or solicitor.
What to put in your bundle
- Certificates for courses that directly match the allegation, with CPD hours and completion dates.
- A reflective statement that names the concern, explains why it happened and describes what you now do differently.
- A report from a clinical or educational supervisor who has read the allegations and has watched your practice since.
- Testimonials from senior colleagues that show they know about the concern, on headed paper, signed and dated.
- Audit results or case reviews showing safe practice in the area that was criticised.
- Appraisal records and your personal development plan showing the concern has been discussed and acted on.
- Evidence of workplace changes, such as a new checklist, protocol or way of documenting that you now follow.
- Evidence of keeping knowledge and skills up to date if you are not working or are restricted.
Writing your reflection
- Start with what happened, stated plainly and without minimising, then explain why it was wrong by reference to Good medical practice.
- Show you understand the impact on the patient, colleagues and public confidence, not just on you.
- Describe specific changes in your practice and when they started, rather than general promises.
- Link each piece of learning to the course or experience it came from, so the tribunal can see the chain from training to practice.
- Write it yourself and keep it honest; tribunals can tell when a statement has been written for the doctor.
When to start remediation
Start early, but start properly. The GMC invites evidence of insight and remediation during its investigation, and case examiners decide on the evidence in front of them. Remediation that starts a week before a hearing is easier to dismiss as a reaction to the hearing rather than real change.
Do not rush into a stack of certificates. Speak to your defence organisation, understand exactly what is alleged, then choose learning that matches it. Give yourself time to apply it at work and collect evidence as you go. For a review hearing, plan from the day the order is imposed.
Interim orders and what they mean for remediation
An interim order is not a finding against you. An IOT decides only whether your practice should be restricted while the investigation takes place. It can impose conditions or suspend your registration for up to 18 months, and it must review the order within six months and then at intervals of no more than six months.
Each review is a chance to show progress. Under interim conditions, keep careful records of compliance and of your supervisor’s view of your practice. If suspended, keep your knowledge up to date and work on learning that addresses the concern.
Common mistakes doctors make with remediation
- Choosing courses that do not match the allegation, such as a probity course for a clinical concern.
- Relying on a personal statement alone, which the case examiners’ guidance treats as self-certification.
- Treating remorse as insight. Insight means understanding why it happened and what you would do differently.
- Collecting certificates without showing the learning has been applied in practice.
- Using testimonials from people who do not know about the allegations.
- Leaving remediation until just before a hearing or review, with no time to show sustained change.
Core course
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
Our most complete remediation course: 4 CPD hours and 40 scenario questions on impairment, insight, remediation and reflection, with a certificate when you pass.
GMC remediation: common questions
Are these courses approved by the GMC?
No. The GMC does not approve, accredit or recommend remediation courses, and the MPTS does not either. Case examiners and tribunals judge the evidence you provide on its own merits. Our courses give you a scored assessment, a structured reflective account and a CPD certificate. Their value depends on how relevant they are to your concern and how well you show you have applied the learning.
Will a remediation course guarantee a good outcome?
No course can guarantee an outcome. Decision makers look at the seriousness of the concern, the context, your insight, your remediation and the current risk. In the most serious cases, such as serious dishonesty or sexual misconduct, public confidence may require action even where remediation is strong. A relevant course is one part of the evidence, not a solution on its own.
Does the GMC ask for my reflective notes?
The reflective practitioner guidance, developed by the GMC with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the UK Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans and the Medical Schools Council, says the GMC does not ask a doctor to provide their reflective notes in order to investigate a concern. You can choose to offer reflection as evidence of insight. Get advice before you decide what to share.
Is a personal statement enough to show remediation?
Usually not. The case examiners’ decision guidance says personal statements, or self-certification, are not considered appropriate evidence of remediation. Your statement is important for showing insight, but remediation needs objective support such as certificates, CPD records, audits and reports from supervisors who have observed your practice since the concern. Ask for them early.
Can I agree undertakings instead of going to a hearing?
At the end of an investigation, case examiners can agree undertakings with a doctor instead of referring the case to a tribunal, where that is enough to protect the public. Undertakings are commitments about your future practice that you agree with the GMC, and they are designed to deal with the risk the concern raises. Your defence organisation can advise whether this is realistic in your case.
How quickly can I start, and what do I receive?
Courses are self-paced and available as soon as you buy them. Each course carries 2 CPD hours and 15 multiple choice questions, except the Fitness to Practise course, which carries 4 CPD hours and 40 questions. The pass mark is 80%. On passing you complete a structured reflective account and receive a CPD certificate PDF with your name, the course title and CPD hours.
Should I talk to my defence organisation first?
Yes. Before responding to the GMC or putting forward any evidence, speak to your medical defence organisation, a union adviser or a solicitor experienced in regulatory law. They can tell you what to submit and when. This page and our courses support your learning and reflection; they are not legal advice.
Official sources
This page was checked against General Medical Council guidance in October 2026. Processes and guidance change, so always confirm the current position with the regulator and your adviser. This page is general information, not legal advice.
- GMC: Our fitness to practise processes, a guide for doctors
- GMC: Guidance for decision makers on making decisions on cases at the end of the investigation stage
- MPTS: Guidance for MPTS tribunals
- MPTS: Step 2d, consider how the doctor has responded to the allegations
- MPTS: Step 3, decide on sanction
- MPTS: Interim orders tribunals, how they work
- GMC: The reflective practitioner, guidance for doctors and medical students
- GMC: Get to know Good medical practice 2024