The GMC’s 2026 survey should prompt employers to examine what SAS and locally employed doctors can actually access, rather than simply which policies exist. This is an independent editorial review. The questions and proposed timetable below are our recommendations, not new GMC requirements.
The evidence: 38% of SAS respondents and 48% of locally employed respondents reported difficulty accessing continuing professional development in the preceding year. At the same time, 83% and 67% respectively reported responsibility for training others, formally or informally. The GMC also reports that, among respondents who did not report bullying or harassment, 67% in each group believed reporting would make no difference. That last figure concerns a subgroup, not all doctors surveyed. These are respondents’ experiences, not an audit of every employer.
1. Can doctors obtain the development their work requires?
Ask for evidence of access, not just a study-leave policy. Review requests approved, declined or cancelled, the reasons, and whether rota cover prevented attendance. Separate SAS and locally employed experiences and examine differences between departments. Agree how identified barriers will be resolved, with protected time and practical cover considered alongside funding.
2. Is teaching recognised in the work plan?
Identify who supervises, teaches and supports colleagues, including informal contributions. Discuss whether the time, preparation and support needed are reflected in agreed duties. An organisation that depends on a doctor’s educational contribution should be able to explain how it enables that work. Counting teaching sessions alone will miss mentoring, feedback and day-to-day supervision.
3. Are career decisions transparent and open to scrutiny?
Give doctors a clear route to discuss progression, the criteria being applied and the reasons for decisions. Distinguish contractual processes, organisational requirements and evidence of capability. Review whether senior responsibilities have developed without a corresponding discussion about role, recognition and support. Apply the relevant national and local arrangements; the survey itself does not establish an individual entitlement to a particular grade.
4. What happens after someone raises a concern?
Map the practical route from first disclosure to response and follow-up. Ask whether the person receives an explanation of what can be investigated, what support is available and when they will hear back. Consider independent routes where hierarchy or working relationships make reporting difficult. Review patterns without exposing individuals, and test confidence through confidential feedback rather than treating a low complaint count as evidence of a healthy culture.
5. Who has authority to make the changes?
Name an executive sponsor and involve SAS and locally employed doctors in deciding priorities. Make clear which decisions sit with departments and which require corporate action. A representative who can describe problems but cannot obtain decisions is not a substitute for accountable leadership. Report actions and unresolved barriers through an established governance forum.
A practical 90-day response
During the first 30 days, establish a baseline with staff representatives and agree the three most important local barriers. By day 60, give each action a named owner, resources or a decision route, and a completion date. By day 90, report what has changed, what remains blocked and what affected doctors say about the result. Use anonymised, proportionate information and avoid reporting small groups in ways that identify individuals.
The purpose is not another declaration of support. It is a set of decisions that staff can see and test: access to development, recognition of educational work, transparent progression, a credible response to concerns and leadership with the authority to act. Progress should be judged by the experience of the doctors concerned.
Sources checked 18 October 2026: GMC, Supporting careers, recognising contribution: SAS and LE doctors survey 2026 (linked below); GMC news release, “Thousands of doctors face bullying and discrimination, but fear speaking out”. The recommendations in this review are those of SAS Doctors Review.
GMC — SAS and LE doctors survey 2026 ↗