Role of remediation in cases of serious misconduct before UK healthcare regulators: a qualitative study.

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.