Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings


Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings: Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

<mark>Journal publication date</mark>2017
<mark>Journal</mark>Ethics and Social Welfare
Issue number4
Number of pages15
Pages (from-to)382-396
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date1/03/17
<mark>Original language</mark>English


All professions regulated by the HCPC have ‘protection of title’. This means that only those on its relevant register can legally work as or call themselves a social worker. As such, the HCPC’s Fitness to Practise panel wields a lot of power over individuals brought before it, effectively being able to prevent them from gaining employment as a social worker or imposing conditions on their practice. This article reports the findings from a study which examined publically available notes of HCPC fitness to practise hearings. The aim was to analyse what happens when an initial investigation finds that there is a case to answer, what factors influence the findings of the Fitness to Practise panel and how the outcome of the hearing then affects the social worker subject to the HCPC process. Using thematic analysis, our findings suggest that the seriousness of the alleged misconduct does not necessarily relate to the severity of sanction applied. It is the social worker’s engagement with the process, her insight into the issues and her credibility as a witness that appears to have the most significant bearing on the level of sanction applied. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.