Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey.
McJury, Mark.
Affiliation
  • McJury M; University of Glasgow, Level 2, ICE Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK. mark.mcjury@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 635, 2024 May 16.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38755666
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In healthcare, regulation of professions is an important tool to protect the public. With increasing regulation however, professions find themselves under increasing scrutiny. Recently there has also been considerable concern with regulator performance, with high profile reports pointing to cases of inefficiency and bias. Whilst reports have often focused on large staff groups, such as doctors, in the literature there is a dearth of data on the experiences of smaller professional groups such Clinical Scientists with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council. This article reports the findings of a survey from Clinical Scientists (Physical Sciences modality) about their experiences with their regulator, and their perception of the quality and safety of that regulation.

METHODS:

Between July-October 2022, a survey was conducted via the Medical Physics and Engineering mail-base, open to all medical physicists & engineers. Questions covered typical topics of registration, communication, audit and fitness to practice. The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions. Likert scoring, and thematic analysis were used to assess the quantitative and qualitative data.

RESULTS:

Of 146 responses recorded, analysis was based on 143 respondents. Overall survey sentiment was significantly more negative than positive, in terms of regulator performance (negative responses 159; positive 106; significant at p < 0.001). Continuous Professional Development audit was rated median 4; other topics were rated as neutral (fitness to practice, policies & procedures); and some as poor (value).

CONCLUSIONS:

The Clinical Scientist (Physical Sciences) professional registrants rated the performance of their regulator more negatively than other reported assessments (by the Professional Standards Authority). Survey respondents suggested a variety of performance aspects, such as communication and fitness to practice, would benefit from improvement. Indications from this small dataset, suggest a larger survey of HCPC registrants would be useful.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Delivery of Health Care / Government Regulation Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Delivery of Health Care / Government Regulation Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United kingdom