A post has been reported

By a patient, a colleague, a member of the public or your employer — whether from a professional account or a personal one.

Contact moved to messaging

A patient found you online, a friend request was accepted, and the relationship changed character from there.

You post about health publicly

You have an audience, you promote services or products, or you comment on clinical matters — the area where declaration and accuracy duties bite hardest.

You are under fitness to practice investigation

A case is open with the GMC, GDC, NMC, GPhC, HCPC, GOC, GCC, GOsC or Social Work England and you need documented CPD and written reflection to put behind your response.

The allegation is a breach of boundaries

Contact with a patient that went beyond the professional relationship — private messaging, personal contact outside working hours, or a relationship that carried on after care ended.

The allegation is a breach of confidentiality

Something about a patient, a case or a workplace was posted publicly — named, photographed, or identifiable from the details in combination even though no name was used.

You are said to have posted claims that are not evidence-based

Unethical or irresponsible use of a platform to state things the evidence does not support, where the concern is that it exploits a reader's lack of medical knowledge or their vulnerability.

The concern is about advertising or promotion

Irresponsible advertising of a service, product or treatment — undeclared sponsorship, benefit claimed without balance, or promotion aimed at people who are unwell or worried.

Your qualifications or expertise are questioned

Inaccuracies in how your knowledge, skills, titles or scope of practice are described in a bio, a post or an advertisement — a probity matter as much as a professionalism one.

Confidentiality

Discussing a case publicly, photographs taken at work, or details that identify someone in combination.

Boundaries with patients

Friend requests, direct messages, clinical advice given informally, and contact continuing after care has ended.

Conduct towards colleagues

Criticism that became personal, pile-ons, and comments about a colleague or an organisation that would not have been made in a meeting.

Undeclared interests

Sponsored posts, gifted products or treatments, affiliate links, and promotion of your own services without the interest being made clear.

Accuracy and health claims

Content that could mislead people about their health or discourage them from appropriate care — the newest area of regulatory attention.

Views expressed as a professional

Political, religious or personal opinion expressed in a way that abuses, targets or discriminates against an individual or group.

Professionalism and boundaries online

What professionalism and boundaries mean on social media, and the impact unprofessional use has on patients, colleagues, the profession and you.

Risks and responsibility

The common risks that arise for healthcare professionals online, and what taking responsibility for your own conduct involves.

What the regulators require

Five lessons working through the standards on confidentiality, professional boundaries, conflicts of interest, trust, and social media use specifically.

Complaints and investigations

Responding to a complaint about something you posted, how fitness to practice standards apply to online conduct, and maintaining professionalism while an inquiry runs.

A personal social media code of conduct

Setting your own rules for professionalism and boundaries online, then tracking and reflecting on how you apply them — remediation evidence you can actually show.

Conclusions and assessment

Takeaways, followed by a post-course assessment. Your certificate is issued on completion.

Social media

Interpreted broadly by the regulators: not only the large platforms but blogs, forums and discussion boards, video and image sharing, professional networking sites, messaging apps and closed groups. The standards follow the conduct rather than the platform.

Public statement

Anything you say in a forum where it can be seen beyond a private conversation — including posts in closed or members-only groups, which are not private for regulatory purposes.

Indirect identification

Where details that seem harmless individually — condition, timing, location, department, an image of a setting, or your own account identifying where you work — combine to make a patient identifiable. One of the most common confidentiality findings.

Declaration of interest

Being open about anything that might influence a recommendation you make online: sponsorship, gifted products or treatments, affiliate arrangements, or promotion of your own services.

Personal and professional accounts

A distinction that matters for how you use each, but not one that puts either outside your professional standards. Conduct on a personal account can still affect public trust in the profession.

Irresponsible advertising

Promotion of a service, product or treatment that overstates benefit, omits risk, hides a commercial interest, or is aimed at people whose illness or worry makes them easier to persuade. Regulators treat it as a probity matter, not a marketing one.

Scope of practice

The range of work your training, competence and registration actually cover. Describing knowledge, skills, titles or qualifications online in a way that reaches beyond it is an inaccuracy about yourself, whether or not anyone was harmed.

Remediation

The concrete steps taken so the same thing does not happen again — a personal code of conduct, privacy and account changes, training, and a documented account of how you now use these platforms — with evidence they were sustained.

The old guidance was withdrawn

Doctors’ use of social media, published in 2013, was withdrawn on 30 January 2024. It now sits in the GMC’s archived standards. Advice built on it is advice built on a withdrawn document.

New standalone guidance replaced it

Using social media as a medical professional took effect the same day and was updated on 13 December 2024 when regulation of physician associates and anaesthesia associates began.

And a new duty came with it

The first thing the guidance asks you to weigh is the impact your content may have on patient behaviour and on attitudes towards health and healthcare services. Misleading health content is now squarely a regulatory question.

“It was my personal account”

The standards follow your conduct, not the account. Whether the post undermines trust is the question; which profile it came from is not an answer to it.

“It was a closed group”

Closed and members-only groups are not private for regulatory purposes. Anyone in the group can screenshot, and in practice someone usually does.

“I did not name anyone”

Indirect identification is the common finding: condition, timing, location, department, an image of a setting, or an account that already says where you work.

“I deleted it”

Deletion after a complaint rarely helps and often reads as concealment, which is a more serious category than the post. Take advice before touching anything.

The wider boundary picture, with patients and colleagues, that most social media concerns sit inside.

When disclosure is lawful, how breaches happen, and why indirect identification catches people out.

Honesty and integrity — including undeclared commercial interests, endorsements and claims about yourself.

The element assessed in almost every case, whatever the allegation, and the one most often described as lacking.

How to write reflection that reads as understanding rather than regret, in your own words.

Turning insight into concrete, evidenced change that a panel can see actually happened.

What fitness to practice means, how the process works, and what is being assessed at each stage.

Restoring confidence after a concern — with patients, with colleagues and with the regulator.