Why This Matters
When facing fitness to practise proceedings before the NMC, GMC, GDC, HCPC, or any UK healthcare regulator, your written response can make or break your case. Yet healthcare professionals are increasingly using ChatGPT to draft regulatory responses – a decision that can catastrophically backfire.
This article examines why AI-generated responses create serious risks in regulatory proceedings, illustrated through a real case from our practice.
The Problem: AI Doesn’t Understand Your Case
ChatGPT operates through pattern-matching, not genuine understanding. When you input case details, the tool cannot:
- Cross-reference your facts against previous statements
- Understand the specific regulatory framework
- Anticipate how panels interpret responses
- Recognise when it generates inconsistent content
In fitness to practise proceedings, consistency between your written response, oral evidence, and previous statements is critical to credibility. Inconsistency raises immediate red flags about character and fitness to practise.
Why Character Concerns Are Devastating
UK healthcare regulators assess fitness to practise across multiple grounds: misconduct, competence, and health. When a fitness to practise panel identifies inconsistencies between your accounts, they interpret this as:
- Lack of insight – you cannot explain events consistently
- Dishonesty or evasiveness – you’re tailoring your narrative
- Character concern – your reliability is questionable
Dishonesty concerns are extraordinarily difficult to unpick. They cannot be remedied through training or apology. Once raised, they can result in fitness to practise being found impaired even if original allegations are not proved.
Real Case Study: How ChatGPT Created a Character Nightmare
What Happened
Client A contacted her regulator early in her fitness to practise investigation. During a phone call, she provided a detailed account of events – genuine, contemporaneous, in her own words.
Several days later, facing a deadline, she made a critical error: she typed her account into ChatGPT and asked it to “refine” her response.
The result was polished and articulate – but subtly different. Words changed. Emphasis shifted. Context was omitted. The written response was inconsistent with her telephone account.
The Regulator’s Response
When the case examiner compared both statements, the inconsistencies were immediately flagged. The regulator raised concerns about Client A’s character, noting:
- Key facts described differently in the two accounts
- Written response omitted previously emphasized context
- Apparent inconsistency suggested narrative tailoring
- Questions about honesty in dealings with regulator
A new, secondary issue had been created: character concerns arising from inconsistent accounts.
The Costly Consequences
By the time Client A came to Regulation Resolution Solicitors, we faced a significantly more complex defence. We had to:
- Explain inconsistencies without suggesting dishonesty
- Rebuild credibility through the authentic telephone account
- Address character concerns by explaining ChatGPT’s role
- Evidence her genuine position with detailed documentation
- Demonstrate insight by acknowledging the error
This required substantially more time, effort, and cost. More critically, it created regulatory concerns that would never have existed had she simply drafted her own response.
Six Specific Risks of AI-Generated Responses
- Loss of Authentic Voice
Healthcare regulators expect written accounts from anxious professionals dealing with stressful situations. Your authentic voice – even if imperfect – makes your account credible and human.
ChatGPT replaces this with generic, polished language that panels may perceive as inauthentic, defensive, or artificially constructed.
- Inconsistency with Previous Statements
Using AI to “refine” your account almost inevitably introduces discrepancies with previous statements. Fitness to practise panels specifically assess consistency. When they identify inconsistencies, they raise character concerns.
- Omission of Critical Context
ChatGPT may omit contextual details, simplify nuanced explanations, or deprioritise information important to your defence. Regulators interpret omission as evasion.
- AI “Hallucination”
Large language models generate plausible-sounding content not grounded in fact. ChatGPT might:
- Generate explanatory phrases that misrepresent your intent
- Introduce causal connections you didn’t state
- Elaborate on reasoning in ways that create vulnerabilities
If your written response contains inaccurate AI-generated content, you face new allegations of dishonesty.
- Data Protection Breaches
Inputting case details into ChatGPT may breach data protection obligations, violate confidentiality agreements, create security risks, or expose patient information.
- Professional Responsibility Concerns
If it emerges your response was AI-generated, regulators may raise concerns about your professionalism, judgment, and willingness to engage honestly with the process.
What You Should Do Instead
Draft Your Own Response
Write in your own words, based on genuine recollection. Don’t worry about perfection – worry about authenticity and accuracy.
Ensure Consistency
Before submitting, review all previous accounts: telephone notes, earlier correspondence, employer statements, disclosed materials. Ensure your new response is consistent. If clarifying earlier statements, do so explicitly and honestly.
Take Your Time
Don’t rush because of deadline anxiety. Regulators generally grant reasonable extensions. Spend time getting it right.
Seek Skilled Legal Representation
A solicitor experienced in fitness to practise defence can:
- Help craft an authentic, compelling response
- Identify inconsistencies and address them
- Ensure legal soundness without creating vulnerabilities
- Advise on tone, emphasis, and strategic framing
- Evidence insight, understanding, and character
A skilled regulatory lawyer understands your specific regulator’s approach, legal standards, how panels interpret written responses, and how to evidence insight and character.
Respond, Don’t React
The pressure of fitness to practise proceedings can lead to reactive, poorly considered responses. Take time to understand allegations fully. A thoughtful, carefully considered response is infinitely more valuable than a rushed one – whether drafted by you or generated by AI.
The Broader Lesson
These risks apply to any high-stakes regulatory communication where accuracy, authenticity, consistency, and character are central.
The legal profession learned this lesson when lawyers relied on ChatGPT for case law research, only to discover fabricated cases. Courts sanctioned the lawyers – not ChatGPT – because they delegated professional responsibility to an unverified tool.
If your ChatGPT-generated response contains inaccuracies or inconsistencies, the regulator will hold you responsible, not ChatGPT.
About Regulation Resolution Solicitors
Regulation Resolution Solicitors specialises in defending healthcare professionals facing fitness to practise investigations before the NMC, GMC, GDC, HCPC, GPhC, GOC, and other UK healthcare regulators.
We understand the regulatory landscape, specific requirements of each regulator, and strategies that work. If you’re facing a fitness to practise investigation, we provide specialist advice on responding to your regulator, preparing for hearings, and defending your professional reputation.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Website: regulationresolution.co.uk
Phone: 02080885161
Email: info@regualtionresolution.co.uk