Failure to ensure safe appointment and oversight of locum doctors
First to latest report 13 Apr 2014 — 9 Mar 2020
Reports that mention this concern
5
Times this concern has been raised
9
Stated actions linked to this concern
5
What this concern includes
Includes failures in the dedicated locum-doctor appointment and oversight process, including competence assessment and sign-off, proportionate supervision or restrictions, monitoring of unresolved remediation or regulatory concerns, and review before subsequent locum employment.
What is not included
Excludes generic staffing shortages or reliance on locum doctors where no appointment or oversight control is deficient.
Excludes general failures in patient records, referrals or clinical care unless they are directly part of the locum-doctor appointment or oversight process.
Excludes employment or disciplinary failures concerning permanent staff unless the report explicitly ties them to locum-doctor safety oversight.
Excludes unrelated regulatory or background-check deficiencies that do not concern the safe appointment or oversight of locum doctors.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Department of Health and Social Care3
General Medical Council2
NHS England2
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB1
Care Quality Commission1
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust1
Recipient name withheld1
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists1
Royal Sussex County Hospital1
University Hospital Lewisham1
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust1
Ysbyty Gwynedd1
Healthcare site3
Ministerial department3
Executive non-departmental public body2
Health and care professional regulator2
NHS trust2
Health and social care service regulator1
Health professional body1
Local health board1
Type not available1
Reports and published responses 5 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised1
Reluctance to supplement locum references with telephone calls to referees
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB
Develop a revised reference-validation process covering referee screening, pre-interview checks, recorded clarifications and additional competence or performance validation.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB
COVID-19 major incident response delayed approval and implementation of the revised reference-validation process until June 2020.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
North East Kent
Concerns raised2
Lack of clear requirements for consultant assessment of locum competence before overnight responsibility
Failure to assess and supervise locum clinicians
This report raised 18 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Department of Health and Social Care
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Department of Health and Social Care
The CQC is responsible for deciding and providing further detail on regulatory action concerning the Trust’s maternity-service safety risks.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Department of Health and Social Care
The Trust is responsible for setting out and implementing actions to address the identified maternity-service safety risks.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Failure to account for junior doctor unfamiliarity during senior review
This report raised 14 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
Remind senior clinicians to exercise extreme caution when reviewing patients assessed by unfamiliar or locum junior staff without personally seeing them.
Inner South London
Concerns raised2
Lack of regulatory monitoring and review of incomplete remediation referrals before subsequent locum employment
Failure to secure complete employment histories, references and fitness to practise information for long-term locum doctors
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Department of Health and Social Care
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Complete employment and professional registration checks for recruited staff, including verifying GMC registration, restrictions and fitness-to-practise investigations.
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Review temporary-staff employment-check processes, including medical agency staff, through an internal audit in January 2015.
Department of Health and Social Care
Establish a high-level Secondary Care Locum Doctor Working Group and obtain recommendations to strengthen locum-doctor recruitment and quality assurance.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Existing recruitment and revalidation arrangements provide sufficient assurance, so further enquiry into locum doctors’ previous fitness-to-practise concerns is not necessary.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Department of Health and Social Care
Locum agencies and healthcare providers are responsible for checking doctors’ fitness and suitability, with ultimate responsibility resting with the employer.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised3
Failure to provide supervision proportionate to identified competence concerns for locum consultants
Failure to use robust processes for signing off locum consultants as competent for independent practice
Failure to use robust processes for appointing locum consultants
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.