Example Of A Complaint To The Gmc Example Of A Complaint Letter To The Gmc: Fill & Download for Free

The accusation that Wakefield’s research is fraudulent is in regard to a single 1998 Lancet Publication he co-authored, titled: “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The focus of that study was gastrointestinal dysfunction in children with autism, not vaccines and autism. The Lancet paper states:“We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers… Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.”“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue…We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.” An addendum states: “Up to Jan 28, a further 40 patients have been assessed; 39 with the syndrome.” -https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltextIn 2003, a freelance journalist by the name of Brian Deer accepted an assignment for the Sunday Times, having been hired by Paul Nuki who stated “I need something big on MMR” as “litigation was pending in the High Court over alleged damage to children from the MMR vaccine.” Subsequently Deer consulted MLI (Medico-Legal Investigations, a firm that provides “a confidential service for the pharmaceutical industry and health sectors”. -MLI ) who assisted him “in strictest confidence -MLI” to craft the allegations. Between 2006 and it’s demise in 2013, MLI was funded entirely by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI), acting as its “police force”. According to MLI’s chairman, 26 of the 27 doctors against who MLI initiated GMC proceedings, were found guilty of “research related matters.” MLI worked closely with “health authorities.” Among its services to Pharma clients was designing complaints to initiate GMC investigations. MLI served as:“Liaison between GMC and complainants during the build-up to the disciplinary hearing; Completion of case and final preparation for hearing under the auspices of the solicitors acting for the prosecution…” -MLIOn February 25, 2004 Deer solely filed a formal complaint against 3 of the 13 study authors (Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, and Simon Murch) with the GMC fitness to practice panel, stating:“I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners.” -Brian DeerThe GMC case against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants on behalf of Brian Deer, alleged that vulnerable children were subject to research under the guise of clinical care. When the GMC case was subjected to genuine judicial review in 2012 at the appeal of Dr. Walker-Smith, the GMC allegations collapsed. After a thorough assessment of all the evidence and testimonies, the High Court determined that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The significant GMC determinations against the study were overturned. The GMC had the opportunity, but chose not to appeal the severe censure by the High Court. The attorney representing the GMC acknowledged that GMC had no additional evidence to substantiate its guilty verdicts. The High Court decision, therefore, became irrevocable. Despite adjudication of the GMC principal allegations against the infamous Lancet Study, the case continues to be mis-portrayed to the public as a valid GMC verdict.The GMC case was built on a central false premise; namely, that the Lancet clinical observation study, was commissioned by the Dawbarns law firm, paid for by the Legal Aid Board (LAB), and conducted under Project 172-96, to support a lawsuit. The GMC panel conflated two different studies. The study (project 172-96) that Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Murch, and Professor Walker-Smith were accused of performing had been approved, and was slated to be conducted AFTER the (Lancet) pilot study. However, as was adjudicated by the High Court, the Lancet observational case series was NOT Project 172-96:The key allegations & GMC fitness to practice panels’ determinations followed by the 2012 High Court adjudication are as follows:(1) “The children described in the Lancet paper were admitted for research purposes under Project 172-96; the purpose of the project was to investigate the postulated new syndrome following vaccination. The Lancet paper failed to state that this was the case, and the Panel concluded that this was dishonest, intentional and irresponsible.” -GMC“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.” -GMC“Serious professional misconduct [alleged by GMC] in relation to the Lancet children was in part founded upon its [GMC] conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172- 96. The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached ‘in the light of all the available evidence’, that was an inadequate explanation.” -Justice Mitting.“None of the five clinicians involved in the investigation of the Lancet children who gave evidence to the panel considered that they were following Project 172-96. None of the children fitted the hypothesis to be tested under Project 172-96,” -Justice Mitting“None of the children fitted the hypothesis to be tested under Project 172-96, in that none of them had both received a single or double vaccine. Project 172-96 was never undertaken.” -Justice Mitting(2) Children were subjected to invasive tests “that were not clinically indicated” – e.g., spinal taps and endoscopic procedures such as colonoscopies and biopsies – for research purposes under 172-96. -GMC“Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet twelve children's investigations [including procedures] were clinically indicated and the research parts [directed by Wakefield] of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95 [the general permission given to Professor Walker-Smith in September 1995].” -Justice Mitting“As Miss Glynn [from GMC] concedes, the reasons for the panel’s findings that colonoscopy, barium meal and follow through and lumbar puncture were not clinically indicated are wrong,” and “the finding that a lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated was not open to the panel and was wrong”. -Justice Mitting.(3) The study lacked ethics committee approval. -GMC“It was a clinically driven investigation which did not require Ethics Committee approval,” -Justice Mitting(4) “Some [4] of the children were not routine referrals to the gastroenterology department, in that they lacked a history of reported gastrointestinal symptoms and had been referred for investigation of the role played by the measles vaccination or the MMR vaccination in their developmental disorders.” -GMC“The [GMC] findings that the referrals of four children were not routine because the referring doctors did not mention intestinal symptoms in their referral letters was factually accurate as to the contents of the referral letters, but of no significance. In each case, Professor Walker-Smith elicited gastrointestinal symptoms at his outpatients clinic. The finding that all four children “lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms” is wrong unless the panel intended only to refer to the contents of the referral letters. -Justice Mitting“The panel’s finding that the description of the patient population [histories] in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.” -Justice Mitting.“In every case investigations were followed by a discharge letter prepared by Dr. Casson which set out a diagnosis of the child's condition and by a recommendation for treatment”. “The discharge notes were appropriately amended.” -Justice Mitting.(5) The description of the children’s diagnosis in the Lancet paper and the description of the referral process as “consecutively referred” was “inaccurate,” and “irresponsible”. -GMC“This [Lancet] paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively [to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology], rather than as a single batch. The words did not imply routine referral.” -Justice Mitting“It [GMC] put its stretched meaning of the wording of part of the paper into his mouth and then found [entered a decision against him] that it was irresponsible and misleading. This was not a legitimate finding.” -Justice Mitting.(6) [Wakefield Caused] “blood to be taken from a group of children for research purposes at a birthday party, which the Panel found to be an inappropriate social setting. He behaved unethically in failing to seek Ethics Committee approval; he showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer, and he paid the children £5 reward for giving their blood.” -GMCOne blood sample each was taken from these developmentally normal, healthy children for research purposes, to serve as controls, for comparison with autistic children with bowel disease. Each of the parents had been contacted prior to the party; they were fully informed, and each gave permission (some of the parents were medical doctors). The blood was taken by a qualified, experienced medical professional, not Dr. Wakefield; the equipment used was appropriate, sterile and the type commonly used.As for Dr. Wakefield’s failure to obtain approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) for the taking of blood from these children: first, according to the National Research Ethics Service, “Not all research conducted within the UK requires approval from an NHS REC”. Dr. Wakefield testified that it was his “understanding at that time was that such approval was not necessary unless the subjects of the research were National Health Service patients.”(7) “Dr. Wakefield accepted monies totaling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research under Project 172-96.”The sworn testimony of Mr. Martin Else, Head of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, confirms that the £50,000 from the Legal Aid Board was held in a separate Special Trustees account (account G106). The money was not paid to Dr. Wakefield; it was first submitted to the UCL medical school, and then transferred by Dean Ari Zuckerman to the Special Trustees account. It was not used until the Lancet study had been completed. The Royal Hospital General Trust fund paid the salary of a lab technician during the 2 years in which the Lancet study was conducted (1996-1998). The technician was not paid with the money provided by Legal Aid Board.(8) “Dr. Wakefield failed to disclose to the Editor of the Lancet his involvement as the inventor of a patent relating to a new vaccine for the elimination of the measles virus (Transfer Factor) which he claimed in the patent application, would be a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). He did not accept that the invention was envisaged as an alternative vaccine to MMR…He acknowledged that he had envisaged the use of transfer factor for at least a proportion of the population, and that he had a financial and career interest in its success, but he insisted that there was a reasonable argument for non-disclosure. The Panel considered that his actions and his persistent lack of insight as to the gravity of his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.” -GMCDr. Wakefield suggested to the administrators that the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine could generate capital by developing biotechnology patents. This patent was submitted in collaboration with the Royal Free. Patent law requires strict confidentiality: any disclosure of information related to a patent will result in loss of legal protection for the patent. The patent for “Transfer Factor” was NOT for a competing measles vaccine; transfer factor cannot stimulate the production of protective measles antibodies. The patent was for a proposed antidote treatment against adverse reactions to the vaccine. However, it was not tested nor developed.(9) “Dr. Wakefield failed to disclose to the Ethics Committee and to the Editor of the Lancet his involvement in the MMR litigation.” -GMCKnowledge about his work in preparation for a class action lawsuit by the UK government sponsored Legal Aid Board, was known to his co-authors, to administrators of the Royal Hospital, and to Dr. Richard Horton editor-in-chief of the Lancet. Justice Mitting quotes from a letter dated November 6, 1996, written by Dr. Wakefield to Professor Walker-Smith about “the legal aspect of these cases and the litigation being proposed by Dawbarns”. As noted above, Dr. Horton was well aware of the planned litigation as proven by his correspondence in 1997 with the attorney who was slated to file the lawsuit. Furthermore, the lawsuit was the subject of an article in The Independent as early as Nov. 27, 1996.The High Court ruled in regard to the GMC’s case against the authors; “there was distortion of evidence, inadequate analysis, inadequate and superficial reasoning and explanation, inappropriate rejection of evidence, ‘flawed’ and ‘wrong’ reasoning, and ‘numerous and significant universal inadequacies’…. Fundamental errors…that go to the heart of the case. They are not curable. The panel’s determination cannot stand.”-Justice Mitting.“Both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel's overall conclusion of serious professional misconduct was flawed…[there was] inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion… the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide”. “The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” -Justice Mitting. (March 7, 2012).“Mr Justice Mitting called for changes in the way General Medical Council fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future saying: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again." -BBC News http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751The High Court records quoted above were found at the British and Irish legal information institute: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html&query=Walker-Smith+and+GMC&method=booleanSome have been critical of the study for failing to conform to the scientific standards of a controlled clinical trial. But the authors never claimed it was a randomized clinical trial; it was a case series; “It wasn’t supposed to be “a scientific sample” or a statistical measure of anything.” - Dr. Walker-SmithOthers have criticized Dr. Wakefield for “making inductive statements on the basis of 12 cases.” Viewed from a non-contentious historical perspective, this study is an example of how scientists identify a new condition based on a small number of patients. For example, Dr. Leo Kanner was the first scientist to identify the condition of “early infantile autism” in 1943. The basis for this identification was his case series involving 11 children. And Dr. Hans Asperger’s paper (1944) described 4 cases of “autistic psychopathy” which laid the foundation for the recognition of Asperger’s syndrome. These small studies are considered seminal works. More recently, a paper in a journal published by the BMJ Group (2004) described findings of cerebral changes in 9 infants who underwent diffusion tensor imaging.In any regard, The Lancet 12 study was ultimately correct in its findings of an association between gastrointestinal dysfunction in children with autism. It is now well documented that GI problems are often a co-morbid condition in these children. Unfortunately, the Lancets retraction of “Wakefield’s” study has created serious implications in the medical profession and has come at a significant cost to children with autism. For more than two decades these children have not been able to receive care for their co-morbid GI conditions, pediatric physicians are not willing to diagnose GI dysfunction in these patients due to the stigma associated with the Lancet study, these children have been neglected by a paralyzed medical profession, and left to suffer without warrant from untreated and debilitating GI symptoms indefinitely.

GreetingsHere is some information provided on PLAB.PLAB -1Taking PLAB / Examination requirementsILETS TestApplication FormDownload Application FormSample Extended Matching QuestionsSample Single Best Answer QuestionsWhat to study for PLAB?Taking the ExaminationFor the purposes of the PLAB test, one should use the same name, in the same order, as it appears on ones passport. It is important so that all correspondence can be intimated to the candidate promptly.ILETS TestThe exact date the IELTS test was taken and the scores obtained has to be mentioned . One should remember that the certificate is valid for a maximum of two years from the date the IELTS test was taken . If an individual passes in the IELTS test is more than two years old at the time of taking Part 1 of the PLAB test, he / she will need to provide proof that they have actively maintained or tried to improve their English language skills since the time they passed the IELTS tests.The ways in which the above can be done include:1) Proof of having undertaken a postgraduate course of study within the last two years since the IELTS test and original IELTS certificate showing that the required scores have been achieved .or2 ) A reference completed by a UK employer or your personal tutor or lecturer on a postgraduate course of study within the last two years since completion of the first IELTS test. The original IELTS certificate showing that the required scores were achieved also has to be enclosed.or3) Proof that the IELTS test was done again and the required scores were achieved.Application FormIf one does the booking was done online, he / she must pay by debit or credit card, otherwise the fee of £145 must be paid in advance in sterling. Else, fees paid in the United Kingdom must be in the form of a cheque, money order or postal order payable to ‘General Medical Council’. Fees sent from other countries, or paid in other countries, must be by sterling bank draft or money order. These must be made payable to ‘General Medical Council’. Please remember, where appropriate, to take bank charges into account when paying the fee.The form should be checked carefully to ensure that the information is correct, and that the form is signed and dated appropriately. Applications must be completed and signed only by the concerned individual. Any discrepancies may delay ones application.In case the candidate wishes to take the examination in the UK, he /she should submit their forms together with the appropriate enclosures by post to thePLAB Test Section (Candidate Services) GMC,178 Great Portland Street,London W1W 5JE.For those who have applied online, confirmation of one place will be given immediately ,otherwise once the form has been processed, a letter offering you a place in the Examination and a map showing you where the Examination centre is located will be sent to your registered address.In exceptional circumstances, leading to postponement or cancellation of the Examination, the candidates will be entitled to a full refund of the Examination entry fee. The General Medical Council will not be liable for any other costs.What is to be studied for PLAB?The main emphasis of the Examination is on clinical management and includes science as applied to clinical problems.The Examination is confined to core knowledge, skills and attitudes relating to conditions commonly seen by SHOs, to the generic management of life-threatening situations, and to rarer, but important, problems.The Examination assesses the ability to apply knowledge to the care of patients.Four groups of skills will be tested in approximately equal proportions:Diagnosis: Given the important facts about a patient (such as age, sex, nature of presenting symptoms, duration of symptoms) you are asked to select the most likely diagnosis from a range of possibilities.Investigations: This may refer to the selection or the interpretation of diagnostic tests. Given the important facts about a patient, you will be asked to select the investigation which is most likely to provide the key to the diagnosis. Alternatively, you may be given the findings of investigations and asked to relate these to a patient’s condition or to choose the most appropriate next course of action.Management/Treatment: Given the important facts about a patient’s condition, you will be asked to choose the most suitable treatment including therapeutics from a range of possibilities. In the case of medical treatments you will be asked to choose the correct drug therapy and will be expected to know about side effects.The context of clinical practice: This may include:i. Explanation of disease process: The natural history of the untreated disease.ii. Legal ethical: You are expected to know the major legal and ethical principles set out in the General Medical Council publication.iii. Practice of evidence-based medicine: Questions on diagnosis, investigations and management may draw upon recent evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, there may be questions on the principles and practice of evidence-based medicine.iv. Understanding of epidemiology: You may be tested on the principles of epidemiology, and on the prevalence of important diseases in the UK.v. Health promotion: The prevention of disease through health promotion and knowledge of risk factors.vi. Awareness of multicultural society: You may be tested on your appreciation of the impact on the practice of medicine of the health beliefs and cultural values of the major cultural groups represented in the UK population.vii. Application of scientific understanding to medicine: You may be tested on the scientific disciplines which underpin medicine. Examples include anatomy, genetics and pathology.The candidate will be expected to know about conditions that are common or important in the United Kingdom for all the systems outlined below.Accident and emergency medicine Examples:Abdominal, chest and head injuries (isolated or multiple injuries), bites and stings, bruising, burns, chest pain, collapse, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), eye problems, shock, trauma.Blood attributed diseases (Examples): Anaemias, coagulation defects, haemoglobinopathies, purpura.Cardiovascular system (Examples): Aortic aneurysm, arrhythmias, chest pain, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), heart failure, hypertension, ischaemic limb, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischaemia, stroke, varicose veins.Dermatology, allergy, immunology and infectious diseases (Examples): Allergy, fever and rashes, meningitis, serious infections including HIV, hepatitis B and tropical diseases, skin cancers.ENT and eyes (Examples): Dysphagia, earache, epistaxis, hearing problems, hoarseness, glaucoma, ‘red eye’, sudden visual loss.Gastrointestinal tract, liver and biliary system, and nutrition (Examples): Abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhoea, difficulty in swallowing, digestive disorders, gastrointestinal bleeding, jaundice, rectal bleeding/pain, vomiting, weight problems.Metabolism, endocrinology and diabetes( Examples): Diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders, weight problems.Nervous system (Examples): Coma, convulsions, eye problems, headache, loss of consciousness, seizures, stroke, transient ischaemic attacks, vertigo.Orthopaedics and rheumatology( Examples): Arthritis, back pain, dislocations, fractures, joint pain/swelling, sprains and strains.Psychiatry (Examples): Alcohol abuse, anxiety, assessing suicidal risk, confusion and delirium, depression, drug abuse, overdoses and self harm, post-natal problems.Renal System (Examples): Haematuria, renal failure, sexual health, testicular pain, urinary calculi and infections.Respiratory system (Examples): Asthma, breathlessness/wheeze, cough, haemoptysis, pneumonia.Disorders of childhood (Examples): Abdominal pain, asthma, child development, childhood illnesses, earache, epilepsy, eye problems, fetal medicine, fever and rashes, joint pain/swelling, loss of consciousness, meningitis, non-accidental injury, sexual abuse, testicular pain, urinary disorders.Disorders of the elderly (Examples): Altered bowel habit, dementia, depression, digestive disorders, urinary disorders.Peri-operative management (Examples): Anti-emetics, pain relief, peri-operative monitoring, post-operative complications, pre-operative assessment.Palliative Care, Oncology( Examples): Blood dyscrasias, general malignancy, pain relief, terminal care.Taking the ExaminationTravel and accommodation arrangements have to be made by the candidate.Part 1 of the PLAB Test is a three-hour Extended Matching Question (EMQ) examination.The Invigilator’s instructions will take about 30 minutes. The Examination will last three hours and collecting the Examination materials will take a further 30 minutes. The candidate is required to be at the Examination centre for a minimum of four hours.The candidate is expected to carry proof of identity to the Examination centre together with the letter from the General Medical Council or British Council offering them a place in the Examination. These will be checked at the Examination.The Chief Invigilator will take a polaroid photograph of the candidate and will be asked to sign on the back of it to verify its authenticity. If for some reason the candidate fails to comply with this process, they will not be permitted to take the Examination.Every candidate will be provided with all the materials needed during the Examination. No other reference material will be allowed .After the ExaminationMarking of the Exams are computerized.For the first sitting of the Examination, the Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board determined the standard required to pass in accordance with a recognized method of standard setting. This standard is maintained by test equating. This means that the standard for each examination will be the same, but the pass mark may vary, reflecting the difficulty of the questions set in the Examination.Temporary personal circumstances which might affect the candidates performance such as illness, pregnancy or bereavement will not be taken into account.At the end of the Examination, the candidate will be informed the date on which their results will be available. This will be about four weeks after the examination. Results will be published on the website and a letter containing the results will be posted about two weeks later to the candidates address.On passing part –1 of the PLAB examination the candidate can apply online immediately to take Part 2 of the test .If the candidate fails in the first attempt he /she may re-apply. However one cannot apply for PLAB Part 2 or re-apply for Part 1 before any previous PLAB examination results have been issued.The results will include information about your position in relation to the pass mark and the performance of the other candidates.Candidates wishing to verify any mark or marks, by means of a clerical check, should submit a request in writing to the PLAB Test Section no later than three weeks after the results have been issued. A fee of £40 must accompany the request.The check will be done at the earliest and a response will be issued within 10 working days.A candidate who wishes to make a complaint about the examination should submit a detailed written report to the Head of the PLAB Test Section no later than three weeks after the results have been issued.The individual should provide their name, address, telephone number and GMC reference number.The complaint will be acknowledge and investigated and a response will be sent within 10 working days.However the candidate cannot make an appeal against the mark they receive for the Examination. The examiners’ decision is final.

Here is some information provided on PLAB.PLAB -1Taking PLAB Examination requirements :ILETS TestApplication FormWhat is to be studied for PLAB?Taking the ExaminationAfter the ExaminationFor the purposes of the PLAB test, one should use the same name, in the same order, as it appears on ones passport. It is important so that all correspondence can be intimated to the candidate promptly.★ IELTS TestThe International English Language Testing System,or IELTS is an international standardized test of English language proficiency for non-native English language speakers. It is jointly managed by the British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia and Cambridge Assessment English. IELTS is one of the major English-language tests in the world. IELTS is the only Secure English Language Test approved by UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) for visa customers applying both outside and inside the UK.No minimum score is required to pass the test. An IELTS result or Test Report Form is issued to all test takers with a score from "band 1" ("non-user") to "band 9" ("expert user") and each institution sets a different threshold. There is also a "band 0" score for those who did not attempt the test.The exact date the IELTS test was taken and the scores obtained has to be mentioned . One should remember that the certificate is valid for a maximum of two years from the date the IELTS test was taken . If an individual passes in the IELTS test is more than two years old at the time of taking Part 1 of the PLAB test, he / she will need to provide proof that they have actively maintained or tried to improve their English language skills since the time they passed the IELTS tests.The ways in which the above can be done include:1) Proof of having undertaken a postgraduate course of study within the last two years since the IELTS test and original IELTS certificate showing that the required scores have been achieved . OR2 ) A reference completed by a UK employer or your personal tutor or lecturer on a postgraduate course of study within the last two years since completion of the first IELTS test. The original IELTS certificate showing that the required scores were achieved also has to be enclosed. OR3) Proof that the IELTS test was done again and the required scores were achieved.★ Application FormIf one does the booking online, he / she must pay by debit or credit card, otherwise the fee of £145 must be paid in advance in sterling. Else, fees paid in the United Kingdom must be in the form of a cheque, money order or postal order payable to ‘General Medical Council’. Fees sent from other countries, or paid in other countries, must be by sterling bank draft or money order. These must be made payable to ‘General Medical Council’.Please remember, where appropriate, to take bank charges into account when paying the fee.The form should be checked carefully to ensure that the information is correct, and that the form is signed and dated appropriately. Applications must be completed and signed only by the concerned individual. Any discrepancies may delay ones application.In case the candidate wishes to take the examination in the UK, he /she should submit their forms together with the appropriate enclosures by post to the :PLAB Test Section (Candidate Services) GMC,178 Great Portland Street,London W1W 5JE.For those who have applied online, confirmation of one place will be given immediately ,otherwise once the form has been processed, a letter offering you a place in the Examination and a map showing you where the Examination centre is located will be sent to your registered address.In exceptional circumstances, leading to postponement or cancellation of the Examination, the candidates will be entitled to a full refund of the Examination entry fee. The General Medical Council will not be liable for any other costs.★ What is to be studied for PLAB?The main emphasis of the Examination is on clinical management and includes science as applied to clinical problems.The Examination is confined to core knowledge, skills and attitudes relating to conditions commonly seen by SHOs, to the generic management of life-threatening situations, and to rarer, but important, problems.The Examination assesses the ability to apply knowledge to the care of patients.♦ Four groups of skills will be tested in approximately equal proportions :Diagnosis - Given the important facts about a patient (such as age, sex, nature of presenting symptoms, duration of symptoms) you are asked to select the most likely diagnosis from a range of possibilities.Investigations - This may refer to the selection or the interpretation of diagnostic tests. Given the important facts about a patient, you will be asked to select the investigation which is most likely to provide the key to the diagnosis. Alternatively, you may be given the findings of investigations and asked to relate these to a patient’s condition or to choose the most appropriate next course of action.Management/Treatment - Given the important facts about a patient’s condition, you will be asked to choose the most suitable treatment including therapeutics from a range of possibilities. In the case of medical treatments you will be asked to choose the correct drug therapy and will be expected to know about side effects.Context of Clinical Practice - This may include :i. Explanation of disease process: The natural history of the untreated disease.ii. Legal ethical: You are expected to know the major legal and ethical principles set out in the General Medical Council publication.iii. Practice of evidence-based medicine: Questions on diagnosis, investigations and management may draw upon recent evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, there may be questions on the principles and practice of evidence-based medicine.iv. Understanding of epidemiology: You may be tested on the principles of epidemiology, and on the prevalence of important diseases in the UK.v. Health promotion: The prevention of disease through health promotion and knowledge of risk factors.vi. Awareness of multicultural society: You may be tested on your appreciation of the impact on the practice of medicine of the health beliefs and cultural values of the major cultural groups represented in the UK population.vii. Application of scientific understanding to medicine: You may be tested on the scientific disciplines which underpin medicine. Examples include anatomy, genetics and pathology.The candidate will be expected to know about conditions that are common or important in the United Kingdom for all the systems.★ Taking the ExaminationTravel and accommodation arrangements have to be made by the candidate.Part 1 of the PLAB Test is a three-hour Extended Matching Question (EMQ) examination.The Invigilator’s instructions take about 30 minutes. The Examination will last three hours and collecting the Examination materials will take a further 30 minutes. The candidate is required to be at the Examination centre for a minimum of four hours.The candidate is expected to carry proof of identity to the Examination centre together with the letter from the General Medical Council or British Council offering them a place in the Examination. These will be checked at the Examination.The Chief Invigilator will take a polaroid photograph of the candidate and will be asked to sign on the back of it to verify its authenticity. If for some reason the candidate fails to comply with this process, they will not be permitted to take the Examination.Every candidate will be provided with all the materials needed during the Examination. No other reference material will be allowed .★ After the ExaminationMarking of the Exams are computerized.For the first sitting of the Examination, the Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board determined the standard required to pass in accordance with a recognized method of standard setting. This standard is maintained by test equating. This means that the standard for each examination will be the same, but the pass mark may vary, reflecting the difficulty of the questions set in the Examination.Temporary personal circumstances which might affect the candidates performance such as illness, pregnancy or bereavement will not be taken into account.At the end of the Examination, the candidate will be informed the date on which their results will be available. This will be about four weeks after the examination. Results will be published on the website and a letter containing the results will be posted about two weeks later to the candidates address.________________________________________________PLAB - 2On passing Part 1 of the PLAB examination the candidate can apply online immediately to take Part 2 of the test .If the candidate fails in the first attempt he /she may re-apply. However one cannot apply for PLAB Part 2 or re-apply for Part 1 before any previous PLAB examination results have been issued.The results will include information about your position in relation to the pass mark and the performance of the other candidates.Candidates wishing to verify any mark or marks, by means of a clerical check, should submit a request in writing to the PLAB Test Section no later than three weeks after the results have been issued. A fee of £40 must accompany the request.The check will be done at the earliest and a response will be issued within 10 working days.A candidate who wishes to make a complaint about the examination should submit a detailed written report to the Head of the PLAB Test Section no later than three weeks after the results have been issued.The individual should provide their name, address, telephone number and GMC reference number. The complaint will be acknowledge and investigated and a response will be sent within 10 working days.However the candidate cannot make an appeal against the mark they receive for the Examination. The examiners’ decision is final.Hope it might help your query✌Upvote if you feel it useful ✍