GMC remediation courses for doctors

GMC concerns rarely arrive with a tidy label. A complaint about a missed diagnosis may also raise record keeping; a social media post may also raise confidentiality. Start with the row that matches the core of the allegation, then add a second row only if the facts clearly touch it. Every course is self-paced and ends with a certificate of completion you can add to your evidence.

The full list of courses for GMC registrants, grouped by concern, appears just below this table, with current prices and a buy button for each one. If you are weighing two rows, the concern guides for probity and dishonesty and clinical competence explain in more depth how those concerns are usually remediated.

Two sets of decision makers may look at your remediation, and each works from its own published guidance.

The GMC during an investigation

The GMC publishes its decision-making guidance on its page How we make decisions. Documents there include Decision-making principles in fitness to practise, Deciding the outcome of an investigation, Decision on whether a warning is required, Decisions on undertakings and Decisions on interim orders. Updated guidance that took effect on 30 May 2025 gives case examiners and other decision makers a framework of three questions: what is the seriousness of the concern, what is the impact of any relevant context, and how has the doctor responded? The GMC gives showing insight and remediation as an example of the third question.

In practice, that third question is where your learning counts. A doctor who has already identified the gap, completed relevant training, reflected on it and changed how they work gives the decision maker something concrete to weigh. The GMC also publishes Supplementary guidance for decision makers when violence and dishonesty may represent a lower risk to public protection, which matters if your concern involves either.

MPTS tribunals at a hearing

If a case goes to a hearing, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal run by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) decides whether your fitness to practise is impaired and, if so, what sanction is needed. Since 24 November 2025 tribunals have used the Guidance for MPTS tribunals, which replaced the previous sanctions guidance. In broad terms, a tribunal looks at whether the failing can be remedied, whether it has been, and how likely it is to happen again. Insight and remediation feed directly into that judgement about risk of repetition.

Three practical consequences follow for your choice of course:

• Relevance beats volume. Ten unrelated certificates say less than two courses that map clearly onto the allegation.
• Some concerns are harder to remediate. Gaps in knowledge or skill can often be addressed through training and supervised practice. Dishonesty and attitudinal failings are harder, because the question is about character and trust, not knowledge. Training still helps there, but reflection and testimonials carry more of the weight.
• Timing matters. Learning done early, and then applied over months, tells a stronger story than learning compressed into the week before a hearing.

We describe the guidance in general terms. Read the current documents yourself, ideally with your representative, for their exact wording.

Whatever the stage, decision makers look at the whole picture, not at a single document. A well-organised pack usually holds five kinds of evidence:

• Certificates of completion for each relevant course, with the dates you took them. A Healthcare Practise UK certificate shows what you studied; it does not show insight on its own.
• Reflective accounts that link each piece of learning to the allegation: what happened, its impact on the patient, colleagues and public trust, what you learned and what you now do differently. The reflective statement builder gives you GMC-specific prompts and keeps your own words; it does not write for you.
• Testimonials from colleagues, supervisors or your responsible officer who know about the concern and have seen your practice since. The testimonial request generator drafts a clear, fair request that tells the writer what the concern is.
• Evidence of changed practice, such as audits, revised templates, supervision notes, patient or colleague feedback, or a personal development plan agreed with your appraiser.
• A plan for the future that shows how you will keep the improvement going and how you will spot early signs of the same problem.

Before you build the pack, run the free remediation readiness check. It is a short self-assessment that shows which of these areas are thin. It points to gaps; it does not predict any outcome. Ask your defence organisation or solicitor to review the finished pack before anything goes to the GMC or the MPTS.

Healthcare Practise UK is an independent education provider. We are not affiliated with, approved by or endorsed by the GMC or the MPTS, and our courses are not GMC-mandated training. Completing a course cannot guarantee any outcome. The GMC and MPTS decide every case on its own facts, and the weight given to training is a matter for them.

We do not give legal advice and we cannot represent you. Please take advice from your medical defence organisation, your union such as the BMA, or a regulatory solicitor before you send any evidence to the GMC. If the process is affecting your health, NHS Practitioner Health offers confidential support to doctors, and your GP can help too.