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

Links

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 journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings : Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose? / Leigh, J.; Worsley, A.; McLaughlin, K.

In: Ethics and Social Welfare, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2017, p. 382-396.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Leigh, J, Worsley, A & McLaughlin, K 2017, 'An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings: Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose?', Ethics and Social Welfare, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 382-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2017.1293119

APA

Vancouver

Author

Leigh, J. ; Worsley, A. ; McLaughlin, K. / An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings : Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose?. In: Ethics and Social Welfare. 2017 ; Vol. 11, No. 4. pp. 382-396.

Bibtex

@article{fa1fe59350d04491992d0dbb014c7177,
title = "An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings: Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose?",
abstract = "All professions regulated by the HCPC have {\textquoteleft}protection of title{\textquoteright}. This means that only those on its relevant register can legally work as or call themselves a social worker. As such, the HCPC{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}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. {\textcopyright} 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.",
keywords = "Fitness to Practise, HCPC, organisational issues, Regulation, social work",
author = "J. Leigh and A. Worsley and K. McLaughlin",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1080/17496535.2017.1293119",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "382--396",
journal = "Ethics and Social Welfare",
issn = "1749-6535",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings

T2 - Fit to Practise or Fit for Purpose?

AU - Leigh, J.

AU - Worsley, A.

AU - McLaughlin, K.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Fitness to Practise

KW - HCPC

KW - organisational issues

KW - Regulation

KW - social work

U2 - 10.1080/17496535.2017.1293119

DO - 10.1080/17496535.2017.1293119

M3 - Journal article

VL - 11

SP - 382

EP - 396

JO - Ethics and Social Welfare

JF - Ethics and Social Welfare

SN - 1749-6535

IS - 4

ER -