Pre and post employment checks: NHSScotland PIN policy

Appendix 3

Annex A: Statutory Regulatory Bodies Operating in Scotland and the Professions they Regulate

There are eight Regulatory Bodies responsible for regulating healthcare professionals across the UK. These are listed below along with the professions they regulate.

Appendix 3

Annex B: Thresholds for Referral to Statutory Regulatory Bodies

[This guidance is adapted from a paper prepared by the Scottish Government in October 2010 in partnership with the General Medical Council, Nursing & Midwifery Council, Health Professions Council, General Dental Council and the General Pharmaceutical Council.]

Introduction

The overriding obligation on the part of the regulators of the health and social care professions is to protect the public. It is therefore sometimes necessary to take action where required in order to protect patients, ensure their safety, or where it is in the public interest. A statutory regulatory body (RB) can act on any information it receives, from any source, where concerns have been raised about a registered professional's fitness to practise. However, in some cases, it is clear from the outset that there is no need for the RB to investigate because the complaint concerns a matter or matters that do not raise an issue of impaired fitness to practise (e.g. minor motoring offences not involving drugs or alcohol; or minor clinical matters (e.g. complaints about the cost of treatment)). These cases are closed by the regulatory body without any further action.

There are, however, other complaints that may require communication with employers to ensure that they have no concerns about the practitioner^[19]. In addition, there are cases that require full investigation by the regulatory body and it is these cases that will be the focus of this guidance.

Cases that require full investigation

Cases that require a full investigation into the practitioner's fitness to practise, such as those relating to conduct, will, in some cases, involve an assessment of the practitioner's health, character, competence or performance. A panel of the Investigating Committee will usually meet and, following its deliberations, reach a decision regarding whether the practitioner should be referred for a full Fitness to Practise hearing^[20]. A practitioner's fitness to practise may be impaired by one or more of the following:

• Misconduct
• Deficient performance/lack of competence^[21]
• A criminal conviction
• Physical or mental ill-health

The Panel's decision may also be influenced by a decision taken by another health professional regulatory body that the practitioner's fitness to practise is impaired, or a barring decision taken by a barring authority in England or Scotland.

Cases where the Regulatory Body is likely to take action

In some cases, allegations about a practitioner are so serious that, if proven, they are likely to result in the RB taking action regarding the practitioner's registration. These cases tend to fall into the following four categories:

• Sexual assault or indecency;
• Violence;
• Improper sexual/emotional relationship with a patient or someone close to the patient; and
• Dishonesty.

Any allegation falling into one of these four categories is likely to meet the threshold for referral to the RB. For examples of allegations relating to potential areas of concern see below. Allegations relating to any one of the four categories will always be of interest to the RB, although other factors, such as those outlined below, may also apply

• The practitioner's performance has deviated from the RB's code of conduct, performance and ethics and, as a result, has harmed patients or the public or put them at risk of harm.
• Attempts to improve the practitioner's performance locally have failed, and the employer has identified an unresolved risk to patient safety.
• The practitioner, about whom the employer has developed significant concerns, leaves employment^[21] to take up work elsewhere.
• The practitioner has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard for clinical responsibilities towards patients.
• The practitioner has abused a patient's trust, not respected their autonomy, or has failed to acknowledge and respect their fundamental rights.
• The practitioner has behaved dishonestly, fraudulently or in a way that is designed to mislead or harm others.
• The practitioner's behaviour was such that public confidence in the relevant healthcare profession might generally be undermined if the RB did not take action.
• The practitioner's health compromises patient safety, and the practitioner lacks insight into the need to pursue advice or treatment and to restrict their sphere of practice.

Summary

If a practitioner working for/with you appears to have reached, or be close to reaching, any of the thresholds set out above the RB should be contacted for advice on how to proceed.

Further information

More detailed guidance relating to the standards expected of healthcare professionals, case examination and investigation processes, fitness to practise panels, and the sanctions that may be applied is available on the websites of the various regulatory bodies.