CNN Central News & Network-ITDC India Epress/ITDC News Bhopal: The presence of doctors in government hospitals is not a minor administrative issue. It is at the heart of public healthcare. For millions of patients who cannot afford private treatment, a government hospital represents their most accessible source of medical care. When doctors are unavailable during scheduled duty hours or allegedly prioritise private practice over government responsibilities, the immediate victim is the patient.
The warning from the Deputy Chief Minister that doctors engaging in unauthorised private practice could lose their jobs therefore deserves serious attention. Government doctors accept a public responsibility when they enter state service. Their duty hours, professional obligations and availability to patients cannot be treated as optional commitments. If private practice is prohibited under service rules, violations must be investigated and action should be taken fairly and consistently.
However, the solution cannot be limited to threats of dismissal. The government should build a reliable system that can objectively establish whether a doctor is present, available and actually serving patients during assigned hours.
A transparent digital attendance mechanism can be an important starting point. Biometric attendance, duty rosters, outpatient records and hospital-level dashboards can be integrated to track doctor availability. Such a system would reduce dependence on manual registers and make it harder for absenteeism to remain hidden.
At the same time, accountability must be based on evidence. Not every instance of absence necessarily means private practice. Government doctors may be performing emergency duties, attending official assignments, dealing with administrative responsibilities or working across multiple departments. Any disciplinary action should therefore follow proper verification rather than assumptions.
The government must also confront the structural problems within public healthcare. Many hospitals face shortages of specialists, inadequate staffing, overcrowded outpatient departments and limited infrastructure. Doctors working in rural and remote areas may face very different challenges from those working in major urban hospitals. Expecting accountability without addressing genuine operational difficulties can create resentment without improving patient care.
The issue of private practice also requires clear and uniform rules. If government service regulations prohibit private practice, the prohibition should apply equally to everyone. Seniority, political influence or professional reputation should not determine whether a violation is overlooked. Conversely, if certain forms of professional activity are legally permitted, the government must clearly define what is allowed and what constitutes misconduct.
The objective should not be to create an atmosphere of fear among doctors. It should be to create an environment where professional responsibility is measurable and enforceable. Doctors who consistently fulfil their duties should not face unnecessary harassment, while those who deliberately neglect patients for unauthorised private work should face appropriate consequences.
Technology can help create this balance. A modern public-health monitoring system could record when doctors report for duty, how long they remain available, outpatient attendance, emergency assignments and scheduled leave. Such data, when used responsibly, could help administrators identify persistent absenteeism while also recognising genuine workload pressures.
Patient experience should remain the central measure. A doctor may technically mark attendance, but if patients are unable to access consultation for hours, the system has still failed. Attendance monitoring must therefore be connected to actual service delivery. Waiting times, patient loads and availability of specialists should form part of hospital performance assessment.
There is also a broader ethical dimension. Public hospitals are financed largely through public resources, and doctors working within them carry a responsibility towards citizens. The poor patient waiting outside an outpatient department cannot be expected to understand administrative excuses when a doctor is unavailable. Public service requires both professional commitment and institutional support.
The government, therefore, has a dual responsibility: demand discipline from doctors and provide the conditions necessary for them to deliver quality care. Adequate staffing, medicines, equipment, safe working environments and rational duty schedules are not concessions to doctors; they are essential components of an effective healthcare system.
A warning that private practice could cost a doctor his or her job may attract attention, but a transparent system is far more powerful than a warning. When attendance is digitally recorded, duty schedules are clear, complaints are independently verified and disciplinary procedures are predictable, accountability becomes institutional rather than political.
The ultimate goal should be simple: when a patient reaches a government hospital during prescribed hours, the doctor assigned to provide care should be available. That expectation is neither unreasonable nor negotiable.
Government healthcare will gain public trust not through occasional crackdowns, but through a system in which doctors are accountable, administrators are transparent and patients receive timely treatment. Discipline is necessary, but sustainable reform requires something more—a healthcare system where accountability is built into the institution itself.
Hashtags: #Editorial #Bhopal #Desksource #Doctors #Must #Accountable #DeskSource #But #Systems #Also
