Exclusive | Hong Kong to reform Medical Council to improve handling of complaints

Hong Kong authorities intend to reform the city’s medical watchdog by raising the proportion of lay members to more than a third and requiring the time frames set for handling complaints to be made public, the South China Morning Post has learned.
The proposed amendments to the Medical Registration Ordinance follow a 15-year delay in the Medical Council’s handling of a complaint against Dr Sit Sou-chi, who was accused of a blunder that left a boy permanently disabled in 2009.
The case was terminated last year on the grounds that the procedural delay prevented a fair hearing, but the council made a U-turn and resumed the inquiry in April following a public outcry.
“The reform aims to uphold the professional autonomy while enabling the Medical Council to perform its functions more effectively, and it would strengthen the transparency and the accountability of the watchdog,” a source close to the policymaking process told the SCMP.
The insider said that the amendment bill would be submitted to the Legislative Council in about two weeks, and authorities began briefing lawmakers and other relevant parties on Wednesday.
Under the proposed amendments, the composition of the council, which currently comprises 24 doctors and eight lay members, would be revamped, the source said.
He added that the proportion of lay members would be increased from 25 per cent to more than 30 per cent, with medical professionals such as nurses, dentists and physiotherapists introduced.

Accrording to the source, the share of doctors would be reduced from 75 per cent but will remain above 60 per cent, and the composition would be diversified to include government-appointed doctors and representatives of the city’s third medical school to be operated by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
The complaint-handling process would also be revamped, with the council required to set separate time frames for investigations and adjudication procedures and make them public, he added.
The source said that missing the deadlines would not lead to a penalty, but an explanation would be requested.
“The Medical Council is ultimately responsible for supervising the progress of disciplinary cases, so it should look into why deadlines were missed and how the system could be enhanced to avert such instances,” he said.
According to the insider, the preliminary investigation committee and the inquiry panel, responsible for the two procedures, would be renamed the investigation committee and medical tribunal panel, respectively.
Under the proposed framework, each body would have five members, composed of a minimum of three doctors and two laypeople, while drawing at least three members from a pool of independent assessors and two from the council, he explained.
There are currently 84 independent assessors – 48 doctors and 36 laypeople – appointed by the council. They come from organisations across the medical, welfare, legal and accounting sectors.
They could be appointed to the preliminary investigation committee, the inquiry panel or the health committee of the council, according to the insider.
The source said the size of the assessor pool would also be doubled.
“This is to reinforce the independence of both the investigation and adjudication processes,” he said.
To strengthen investigation, the council would be empowered to issue practice directions similar to those used in judicial proceedings, such as specifying the deadlines for certain submissions, to help speed up the process, according to the source.
The investigation committee would also be able to appoint designated investigators – either medical professionals or those with a law enforcement background – to help summon people and request information, he added.
The source stressed that the council would have the ultimate responsibility for supervising the secretariat, which would also receive extra support such as legal and medical staff at the directorate grade.
Other proposals included allowing both the complainant and the defendant to apply for a review of the tribunal’s decision or lodge an appeal to the courts, as well as removing doctors convicted of a serious offence from the register immediately instead of waiting for a disciplinary hearing, the insider explained.
Tim Pang Hung-cheong, a patients’ rights advocate with the Society for Community Organisation NGO, said the timeline should not be left open-ended.

He expressed hope that the council would clearly explain to the public how the timeline would be set and managed to allow for feedback on whether it was too long.
“Let’s say a case typically takes 15 months to complete the investigation process; this should become the benchmark to inform the public what to expect,” he said.
“The timeline is not a strict rule that could be forced upon them, but it should not be treated just as a reference either. It must be clearly stated: what happens if the deadline is missed? If there are no penalties, what administrative steps would be taken to push all parties to complete it as soon as possible? Do we simply accept the justifications?”
He added that while the number of lay members should be increased, introducing more healthcare professionals might not bridge the gap between the council’s decisions and public expectations because their views might still be aligned with those of the doctors.
Medical sector lawmaker David Lam Tzit-yuen said that adding lay members met societal expectations, but he asserted that decision-making and discussion processes must be led by medical practitioners.
Introducing a case tracking system would be more realistic than a rigid timeline due to the complexity of each case and fairness concerns, he said. Accordingly, no one should be punished for missing the time frame set, Lam added.
Instead of measuring whether individual cases were handled within the period, a performance pledge on resolving a certain percentage of all cases within the specified time frame could be adopted, he added.
“Previously, the Medical Council had investigative power but not manpower, which often put it in a passive position,” he said. “If we have investigators actively gathering evidence and medical reports, the process should be sped up.”
The council was earlier slammed by the ombudsman for its excessively lengthy complaint-handling process, with 11 cases stuck in limbo for more than 10 years.