Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background The raison d’etre of healthcare profession regulators across the globe is to protect patients and the public from the risk of harm. In cases of serious misconduct, remediation is deemed to be an important factor when considering the risk of harm from a practitioner under investigation. Yet, we know very little about how regulators account for remediation in their decision-making, and whether it is consistent with the aim of risk reduction. This paper explores the role of remediation in decision-making in cases of serious misconduct before UK healthcare regulators.
Methods We conducted interviews with 21 participants from across eight of the nine UK healthcare profession regulators, covering a range of roles in the decision-making process in misconduct cases. Interviews were conducted remotely by video call and digitally transcribed. Data were analysed using the framework analysis method. The initial framework was developed from existing literature and guidance documents from the regulators, and was subsequently refined through the various rounds of coding.
Results Remediation influenced decision-making in three ways: (1) Some types of misconduct were deemed more inherently remediable than others. In cases involving dishonesty or sexual misconduct, remediation was less likely to serve as a mitigating factor. (2) Decision-makers often view remediation as a proxy indicator of practitioner insight. (3) Whether a practitioner had demonstrated their commitment to change through undergoing remediation was more likely to feed into decision-making at the point where current impairment was under consideration.
Conclusions Remediation plays a key role in decision-makers’ judgements in cases of misconduct, particularly when these cases relate to clinical misconduct. In such cases, remediation informs judgements on the levels of practitioner insight and the risk of such misconduct being repeated. Our results suggest a need to develop remediation interventions that are explicitly geared towards the regulatory function of developing practitioner insight. Regulators should also consider the structure of their fitness to practise processes and whether there are appropriate opportunities for judgements on remediation to feed into decisions and to facilitate balanced and proportionate outcomes.
- Qualitative research
- Decision making
- Risk management
- Governance
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request for replication and only in accordance with the terms of ethics approval. The deidentified dataset is available from the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon reasonable request for replication and only in accordance with the terms of ethics approval. The deidentified dataset is available from the corresponding author.
Footnotes
X @TristanJPrice1, @marieebryce
Contributors MEB managed the project. All authors were involved in study design. MEB, ER and TP collected and analysed the data. OQ analysed the case law data. All authors contributed to development of themes from the data. TP led the writing of the paper and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to revisions and redrafts of the paper. TP is the guarantor of this statement and takes full responsibility for the conduct of this work and the decision to publish.
Funding This study was funded by the General Dental Council (GDC2019-007) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (GDC2019-007).
Competing interests This paper is derived from a larger project that was jointly funded by the General Dental Council (GDC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. TO'B, coauthor and coapplicant, has previously received payments (£124 675) from the GDC as an educational advisor and an assessor for specialist list applications. TO'B has also previously received payments from the GDC for acting as an expert witness in regulatory proceedings. MEB, TO'B and TG have previously received funding from the GMC: Bryce M, Gale T, Hanks S, O’Brien T, Zahra D. ‘Unlocking the potential of fitness to practise data’. August 2020 to January 2022, General Dental Council, £151 711.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.