So. The GMC say that they will investigate complaints against doctors working for Atos in the same way as any other doctor. See a statement, here:

Niall Dickson, the Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, said:

“We look at all complaints received carefully and take further action on those where there is evidence of a significant concern about a doctor’s fitness to practise, through either serious or persistent failure to follow our guidance. In cases where a complaint falls short of this threshold, we will refer it to the doctor’s employer to investigate where appropriate. Our rules apply equally to all doctors, regardless of whether their employer is in the public or private sector.”

The GMC have, so far, investigated one doctor working for Atos. In the judgement, this statement was made:

The GMC initially relied upon both paragraphs 2(a) and 65 of Good Medical Practice.  Late in the hearing, the GMC invited the Committee to focus on paragraph 65 since there was doubt as to whether you were providing “clinical care” in the circumstances of this case. The report was provided for the purposes of the DWP and was not produced in the course of providing conventional “clinical care” for Mrs A.  The Committee does not consider that paragraph 2(a) of Good Medical Practice is applicable in this case. It is of the view that, on the facts of this case, you were not providing clinical care to Mrs A.”

This would seem in contradiction to the letter from Jane O’Brien to the BMJ, in which she says

“Our guidance is for all doctors and in the guidance we use the term ‘patient’ to refer to anyone whom doctors test, treat or assess in their professional capacity as a doctor. This includes amongst others, employees, benefits and insurance claimants, and athletes.

“The first duty of all doctors is ‘to make the care of your patient your first concern’.”

Why the apparent contradiction? The GMC have told me this: they sought to issue a warning to that doctor, under Good Medical Practice 2A. The doctor challenged the decision, and it went to a hearing. It was the Investigation Committee panellists who decided that the doctor was not providing ‘clinical care’ . The GMC have no right of appeal against the decisions of the  Investigations Committee, who are independently elected.

No wonder there is confusion.