The behaviours most likely to put doctors before a tribunal

Overview 

• Recent MPTS data highlights clear patterns in the types of behaviours and circumstances most likely to result in adverse tribunal outcomes.

• Criminal convictions, dishonesty, sexual misconduct and drug‑related misconduct continue to dominate the most serious determinations.

• Insight, remediation and maintenance of professional skills remain decisive factors in whether impairment is found to persist.

• Health‑related issues affecting judgement or behaviour feature prominently, particularly where doctors disengage from treatment or occupational health.

• Boundary violations involving colleagues are increasingly visible in tribunal caseloads and are treated as high‑risk.

Newly published MPTS data for 2025–26 provides a detailed picture of the types of cases reaching substantive hearings and the factors that most commonly lead to findings of impairment, suspension or erasure. While the GMC receives thousands of concerns each year, only a small proportion progress to tribunal. Those that do tend to involve a consistent set of behaviours, circumstances and risk indicators that doctors should understand clearly.

The data shows that sexual misconduct, dishonesty, criminal convictions, boundary violations, and drug‑related misconduct continue to dominate the most serious outcomes. It also highlights the decisive role of insight, remediation and health‑related factors in determining whether impairment persists.

Criminal convictions and off‑duty behaviour

Criminal convictions remain one of the strongest predictors of adverse tribunal outcomes. Drink‑driving offences, harassment‑related behaviour, and offences involving indecent or explicit online material all featured in 2025–26 determinations. Even when unrelated to clinical practice, convictions are treated as serious misconduct because they raise questions about judgement, professionalism and public confidence.

Tribunals assess not only the offence itself but also the doctor’s insight, the risk of repetition, and whether meaningful remediation has taken place. Failure to declare convictions to employers or the GMC is treated as an aggravating factor.

Dishonesty and integrity concerns

Dishonesty continues to be one of the most heavily weighted risk factors in MPTS decision‑making. Cases involving fraudulent prescriptions, falsified documents, misleading declarations, or attempts to conceal wrongdoing frequently resulted in findings of impairment.

The MPTS categorises dishonesty as medium‑to‑high seriousness, and repeated or persistent dishonesty is treated as high‑risk. Even single episodes can lead to suspension or erasure if they undermine trust in a doctor’s integrity.

↓ Continued Below ↓

Sexual misconduct and boundary violations

Sexual misconduct remains a significant theme in substantive hearings. The newly published MPTS figures show that more than a third of sexual misconduct allegation types brought before doctor tribunals in 2025 involved colleagues, not patients. This includes inappropriate messages, unwanted advances, and behaviour that breaches professional boundaries within the workplace.

The MPTS is calling for a system‑wide conversation about how sexual misconduct can be prevented and addressed earlier, emphasising the need for organisations to act on early warning signs and support staff in raising concerns.

Boundary violations more broadly—whether involving patients, colleagues or digital communication—continue to be treated as inherently serious. Tribunals consistently view these behaviours as posing a risk to patient safety and public confidence.

Drug‑related misconduct

Misuse of controlled drugs, diversion of medication, and fraudulent prescribing featured in several 2026 determinations. These cases often combine dishonesty, criminality and patient‑safety concerns, making them high‑risk in regulatory terms.

Where addiction or dependency is a factor, tribunals assess the doctor’s engagement with treatment, insight into risk, and evidence of sustained recovery.

Health‑related impairment affecting judgement or behaviour

The MPTS recognises adverse physical or mental health as a statutory ground for impairment. In some cases, misconduct was found to be directly linked to ill health at the time. Tribunals examine whether the doctor has engaged with treatment, whether risk is now controlled, and whether health issues continue to affect judgement or behaviour.

Doctors who do not provide up‑to‑date medical evidence, or who disengage from occupational health or treatment plans, are more likely to have impairment found to persist.

Lack of insight, incomplete remediation and skill‑fade

Insight and remediation remain central to tribunal decision‑making. The 2026 review‑hearing guidance requires tribunals to consider whether a doctor has demonstrated genuine insight, completed meaningful remediation, and maintained professional skills during any period of restriction.

Doctors who cannot evidence reflective practice, behavioural change, or updated clinical competence are at higher risk of continued impairment findings. Skill‑fade during suspension or unemployment is a recurring concern.

What doctors should take from the data

The MPTS figures reinforce several clear themes:

• Criminal convictions—particularly those involving alcohol, harassment or sexual content—almost always trigger regulatory action.

• Dishonesty remains one of the strongest predictors of severe sanction.

• Sexual misconduct and boundary violations, including those involving colleagues, are treated as high‑risk behaviours.

• Drug‑related misconduct combines multiple risk factors and frequently results in suspension or erasure.

• Health conditions that affect judgement must be proactively managed and evidenced.

• Insight, remediation and CPD are decisive in determining whether impairment persists.