Publication time limits, and why MedicWatch keeps records longer
How MedicWatch assesses continued publication when regulator records change or become unavailable, balancing public interest, accuracy and privacy.
Written by the MedicWatch editorial team. Last reviewed 23 September 2026.
A regulator's publication period and MedicWatch's editorial decision are separate questions. Continued publication needs a case-specific justification. A missing source may also require a fresh accuracy or safeguarding review.
GMC and MPTS records
Use the GMC register for a doctor's registration position and MPTS decisions for the findings and procedural history. Registration entries and published decisions serve different purposes; neither a missing result nor an old decision by itself establishes current status.
NMC outcomes
Check the NMC's current register and published outcomes together. A former decision link may be unavailable or replaced by a later or redacted document. We do not assume that the old version remains suitable for publication.
The DPHS / GDC archive
The GDC register and Dental Professionals Hearings Service decisions should be checked for later orders, appeals and favourable reviews. Publication periods differ by outcome; removal from an index does not necessarily mean that a finding was overturned.
Why MedicWatch retains the records longer
An accurate account of a serious professional finding or active restriction can serve a continuing public interest. That does not justify every identifying detail or indefinite prominence in name searches. We consider whether correction, a shorter account, redaction, de-indexing or removal is proportionate.
The journalism exemption is not a blanket permission to retain public records. Its conditions must be assessed in the particular circumstances, and any reliance on it must be justified and documented. See the ICO guidance linked below.
How we balance retention against fairness
We reassess continued publication when a request, later outcome or source withdrawal brings new evidence to our attention. Later favourable outcomes should be prominent. A current impairment review, the expiry of a sanction and an appeal overturning a finding are different events and should be described accurately.
We give particular weight to children, safeguarding and unnecessary location or family detail. Basic profiles without linked adverse findings and obsolete interim-only reports may warrant removal. De-indexing leaves a page accessible, so it may be insufficient for a direct safety concern. See our corrections and takedowns policy for the request process.
Sources
Read MedicWatch's corrections and takedowns policy.
Continue →