Witness to Harm-Holding to Account. Improving patient, family and colleague experiences of Fitness to Practise proceedings: A mixed-methods study.

Louise Wallace, Sara Ryan, Rosalind Searle, Gemma Hughes, Annie Sorbie, Gemma Ryan-Blackwell, Sharif Haider, Richard West
{"title":"Witness to Harm-Holding to Account. Improving patient, family and colleague experiences of Fitness to Practise proceedings: A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Louise Wallace, Sara Ryan, Rosalind Searle, Gemma Hughes, Annie Sorbie, Gemma Ryan-Blackwell, Sharif Haider, Richard West","doi":"10.3310/SSPP1118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the United Kingdom, over 2.5 million health and social care professionals are registered by 13 statutory professional regulators. When professional conduct falls below standard, registered professionals may face an investigation into matters such as their conduct, health or competence via fitness to practise processes. Very serious cases are heard in public by an independent adjudication panel. The public, the largest source of concerns, may be asked by the regulator to be cross-examined in a hearing where their evidence may be crucial. Witness cross-examination is known to be distressing in the criminal context, where the victim is questioned about the harm they experienced and how they faced the alleged perpetrator. In fitness to practise, retelling stories could be similarly retraumatising. Our research focuses on the public (and colleagues) who raise concerns, including that they have been harmed by a professional, and examines their experience of engaging with fitness to practise processes.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>The study employed multiple qualitative methods. Public website materials were analysed using thematic content analysis, accessibility and readability algorithms and a useability survey about submitting a complaint (<i>n</i> = 11). The views of the public and those with personal experience of fitness to practise validated our analysis of the web content (<i>n</i> = 15). Sociolegal analysis was conducted of the United Kingdom's social work/social care regulators' conceptualisations of witness vulnerability and special measures. Twenty-seven registrants' employers were approached, and 25 were interviewed about organisational support for registrants, patients and service users. Data collection via regulators (<i>n</i> = 285) with small numbers via social media included surveys, (<i>n</i> = 64 in total) across 9 regulators, interviews (<i>n</i> = 47) across 10 regulators, ethnographic observation of hearings (<i>n</i> = 22) with 81 days of observation across 9 regulators, and documentary analysis of hearings determinations and witness statements across 13 regulators (<i>n</i> = 207). Project recommendations were coproduced through six formative workshops involving public members, legal, health and social care professionals, regulatory staff and lawyers and academics. Analytic methods included institutional ethnography, thematic analysis and narrative portraits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The website information for the public was often too much or too little, in inaccessible formats, and requiring high literacy and digital skills. The social care regulators' conceptions of vulnerability largely relied on inherent factors (e.g. disability), or misconduct categories, rather than being situationally sensitive to witnesses' diverse needs. The experience of those who had been harmed was found to be profoundly distressing for most participants at each stage of the fitness to practise process: having to retell their story, uncertainty about when and where they would need to respond, and taking part in a legalistic and adversarial process where their evidence, and credibility, were questioned. Findings informed 20 recommendations. Project resources are available for all stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This project provides globally unique evidence of the experiences of the public involved in health and care professional regulation. It recommends improvement of professional regulation through public-focused information, compassionate and trauma-informed communications and support, and for independent cross-regulator evaluation.</p><p><strong>Public and stakeholder involvement and engagement: </strong>Our research was informed throughout by people who had personal experience of fitness to practise, regulators, employers, lawyers and professional bodies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR131322.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 44","pages":"1-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/SSPP1118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the United Kingdom, over 2.5 million health and social care professionals are registered by 13 statutory professional regulators. When professional conduct falls below standard, registered professionals may face an investigation into matters such as their conduct, health or competence via fitness to practise processes. Very serious cases are heard in public by an independent adjudication panel. The public, the largest source of concerns, may be asked by the regulator to be cross-examined in a hearing where their evidence may be crucial. Witness cross-examination is known to be distressing in the criminal context, where the victim is questioned about the harm they experienced and how they faced the alleged perpetrator. In fitness to practise, retelling stories could be similarly retraumatising. Our research focuses on the public (and colleagues) who raise concerns, including that they have been harmed by a professional, and examines their experience of engaging with fitness to practise processes.

Design and methods: The study employed multiple qualitative methods. Public website materials were analysed using thematic content analysis, accessibility and readability algorithms and a useability survey about submitting a complaint (n = 11). The views of the public and those with personal experience of fitness to practise validated our analysis of the web content (n = 15). Sociolegal analysis was conducted of the United Kingdom's social work/social care regulators' conceptualisations of witness vulnerability and special measures. Twenty-seven registrants' employers were approached, and 25 were interviewed about organisational support for registrants, patients and service users. Data collection via regulators (n = 285) with small numbers via social media included surveys, (n = 64 in total) across 9 regulators, interviews (n = 47) across 10 regulators, ethnographic observation of hearings (n = 22) with 81 days of observation across 9 regulators, and documentary analysis of hearings determinations and witness statements across 13 regulators (n = 207). Project recommendations were coproduced through six formative workshops involving public members, legal, health and social care professionals, regulatory staff and lawyers and academics. Analytic methods included institutional ethnography, thematic analysis and narrative portraits.

Results: The website information for the public was often too much or too little, in inaccessible formats, and requiring high literacy and digital skills. The social care regulators' conceptions of vulnerability largely relied on inherent factors (e.g. disability), or misconduct categories, rather than being situationally sensitive to witnesses' diverse needs. The experience of those who had been harmed was found to be profoundly distressing for most participants at each stage of the fitness to practise process: having to retell their story, uncertainty about when and where they would need to respond, and taking part in a legalistic and adversarial process where their evidence, and credibility, were questioned. Findings informed 20 recommendations. Project resources are available for all stakeholders.

Conclusions: This project provides globally unique evidence of the experiences of the public involved in health and care professional regulation. It recommends improvement of professional regulation through public-focused information, compassionate and trauma-informed communications and support, and for independent cross-regulator evaluation.

Public and stakeholder involvement and engagement: Our research was informed throughout by people who had personal experience of fitness to practise, regulators, employers, lawyers and professional bodies.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR131322.

损害追究证人。改善病人、家属和同事的健身实践经验:一项混合方法研究。
背景:在联合王国,有超过250万保健和社会护理专业人员在13个法定专业监管机构注册。当专业操守达不到标准时,注册专业人员可能会透过适合执业程序,就其操守、健康或能力等事项接受调查。非常严重的案件由一个独立的审判小组公开审理。公众是担忧的最大来源,监管机构可能会要求他们在听证会上接受盘问,而他们的证据可能是至关重要的。众所周知,证人交叉盘问在刑事案件中是令人痛苦的,因为受害人被询问他们所遭受的伤害以及他们如何面对被指控的犯罪者。在健身练习中,复述故事可能同样会造成创伤。我们的研究重点是那些提出担忧的公众(和同事),包括他们被专业人士伤害,并检查他们参与健身练习过程的经验。设计与方法:本研究采用多种定性方法。使用主题内容分析、可访问性和可读性算法以及提交投诉的可用性调查对公共网站材料进行分析(n = 11)。公众和有健身实践经验的人的观点验证了我们对网络内容的分析(n = 15)。对英国社会工作/社会关怀监管机构对证人脆弱性和特别措施的概念进行了社会法律分析。我们接触了二十七名注册者的雇主,并与二十五名注册者、病人和服务使用者就组织支持进行了访谈。通过监管机构(n = 285)通过社交媒体收集少量数据,包括9家监管机构的调查(n = 64), 10家监管机构的访谈(n = 47), 9家监管机构81天的听证会人种学观察(n = 22), 13家监管机构听证会决定和证人陈述的文献分析(n = 207)。项目建议是通过由公众成员、法律、保健和社会保健专业人员、管理人员、律师和学者参与的六个形成性讲习班共同提出的。分析方法包括制度人种学、主题分析和叙事肖像。结果:面向公众的网站信息往往过多或过少,格式难以访问,要求较高的文化水平和数字技能。社会关怀监管机构对脆弱性的概念很大程度上依赖于固有因素(如残疾)或不当行为类别,而不是对证人的不同需求具有情境敏感性。研究发现,对于大多数参与者来说,在适应实践过程的每个阶段,那些受到伤害的人的经历都是非常痛苦的:不得不重新讲述他们的故事,不确定他们何时何地需要回应,参与一个法律上和对抗性的过程,他们的证据和可信度受到质疑。调查结果提出了20项建议。项目资源可供所有干系人使用。结论:该项目为公众参与卫生和保健专业监管的经验提供了全球独特的证据。它建议通过以公众为中心的信息、富有同情心和创伤知情的沟通和支持以及独立的跨监管机构评估来改进专业监管。公众和利益相关者的参与和参与:我们的研究是由具有个人执业经验的人、监管机构、雇主、律师和专业团体提供的。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR131322。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书