Survey Demographics
A total of 146 responses were collected. Two respondents noted that they worked as an HCPC Partner (a paid role). They were excluded from the analysis due to potential conflict of interest. One respondent’s responses were all blank aside from the demographic data, so of little use.
Analysis is based on 143 responses, which represents ~6% of the UK profession [11]. It is arguable whether it is representative of the profession at this proportion of response – but these responses do offer the only sizeable pool of data currently available. The survey was aimed at those who are on the statutory register as they are most likely to have relevant interactions & experiences of the HCPC, but a small number of responses were also received from Clinical Technologists (MTOs) and Engineers (CEs) and these have been included in the analysis. Figure 2 shows the breakdown in respondents, by nation.
Figure 2. Proportion of Respondents, by nation.
Of the respondents, 91% are registered Clinical Scientists, and would therefore have a broad range of experience with HCPC and its processes. Mean time on the register was 12 yrs. Respondents show a large range in seniority, and their roles are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Breakdown in respondents, by role and Agenda for Change (AfC) pay banding. (CS-Clinical Scientist; CE-Clinical Engineer; MTO-Medical Technical Officer/Technician; CS P are those working in private healthcare settings, so not on AfC pay bands).
These data can be compared with the most recent HPCPC ‘snapshot’ of the CS registrants (find here: Registrants by profession snapshot - 1967 to 2019 | (hcpc-uk.org)).
CPD Audit
In the survey, 12% respondents reported having been audited by HCPC regarding their CPD (response rate 97%). This is well above the level of 2.5% of each profession, which HCPC aims to review at each renewal [12], and similar values reported by some professional bodies [13]. The participants seem representative, although two respondents mentioned their perception of low audit rates (see Table 3). Data on CPD audit is available here: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/insights-and-data/cpd/cpd-audit-reports/
Respondents rated the process of being audited as a median of 4 (mean 3.7), which is the joint highest score on the survey, pointing to satisfaction with the process. From Table 3, the overall perception could be summed up as straight-forward, but time-consuming. Without regular record-keeping, unfortunately most audits will be time-consuming – the HCPC more so, as it is not an annual audit, but covers the two preceding years.
Table 3. Themes from respondent replies to questions relating to professional audit.
CPD Audit
|
Theme
|
Response numbers
|
Easy / straightforward
|
7
|
Time-consuming
|
6
|
Useful
|
3
|
Stressful
|
2
|
Low audit rates
|
2
|
Poor feedback
|
1
|
Some respondents did find the process not only straight-forward, but also useful (related to feedback received). However, responses regarding feedback were mixed, with comments on both good, and poor feedback from HCPC.
Policies & Procedures
The HCPC’s policies & procedures were rated as a median of 3 (mean 3.2; response rate 98%). This neutral score could suggest a mixture of confidence in HCPC practise. This score may also reflect the fact that the majority of respondents had either not read, or felt they had no need to read the policies, and so are largely unfamiliar with them.
The reasons for this lack of familiarity are also explained by some respondents (see Table 4) – four commented that the policies & procedures are rather too generic/vague. Three respondents noted that they felt the policies were not sufficiently relevant to their clinical roles to be useful. This may be due to the policies being written at a level to be applicable to registrants from all 15 modalities – and perhaps a limitation of the nature of HCPC as a very large regulator. Familiarity seemed mainly to be restricted to policies around registration, and CPD. There were slightly lower response levels for positive sentiment (6), than negative sentiment (9).
HCPC split their policies into ‘corporate’- which relate to organisational issues (e.g. equality & diversity; find them here: Our policies and procedures | (hcpc-uk.org)) and those more relevant to professions (e.g. relating to the register; find them here: Resources | (hcpc-uk.org)).
Table 4. Themes relating to HCPC’s policies & procedures.
Policies & procedures
|
Theme
|
Response numbers
|
Not/no need to read
|
47
|
Fine /as expected
|
5
|
Too generic
|
4
|
Not sufficiently relevant
|
3
|
Too many
|
2
|
Useful
|
1
|
|
|
One respondent noted not only that the policies were ‘as you might expect’, but felt the policies were more rigorous as those from other similar bodies such as the CQC (https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications).
Handling personal data & data security
This topic overlaps with the next (Processing Registration & renewals) in that both involve online logins, website use etc.
Table 5. Themes relating to management of registrant personal data.
Security & data handling
|
Theme
|
Response numbers
|
No problems
|
10
|
Problems/awareness of issues with personal data / weak security
|
10
|
Unsure how personal data is managed
|
9
|
Security & data handling was rated as neutral (median 3, mean 3.4; response rate 91 %). In this area too there is equipoise in terms of satisfaction shown in the responses (see Table 5) – and again a significant number of respondents note a lack of knowledge about HCPC processes. There are almost equal proportions of respondents reporting no issues, some problems with handling of personal data, or insufficient knowledge to express an opinion.
There have previously been some concerns raised on the UKMPE mail-base regarding handling of personal data, and lack of efficiency in addressing the issue [14]. Several messages detailed HCPC communicating unencrypted registrant passwords in emails and sending personal data to the incorrect registrant. Some on the forum noted that they had reported this problem over a period of several years to HCPC, suggesting HCPC’s response to these serious issues was extremely slow. Several responses note these previous issues.
Processing registrations & renewals
The score for processing registrations & renewals, was a median of 4 (mean 3.5; response rate 92 %) which suggests modest satisfaction.
Although responses show some satisfaction, there have been reports in the media of significant issues with registration with associated impact for patients and the public [15, 16]. Similarly, there were reports on the UKMPE mail-base of significant issues with registration renewals being problematic [14]. In Scotland, NHS.net email accounts ceased to be supported in July-Sept 2020 and the associated lack of access to email accounts and messages used for HCPC communication and registration, caused a major issue in registration renewal. This coincided with COVID lockdowns and a period of unusually difficult communication with HCPC. If NHS staff lose registration (irrespective of the reason), respondents noted that some Human Resources (HR) departments were quick to suspend staff from work, and in some cases withhold pay. That spike in difficulties is likely the cause of the most common responses suggesting a complicated process. The overall rating also suggests that the issues may have been experienced by a comparative minority of registrants and that for most, renewal was straightforward.
Although the Likert score is positive, the themes in responses explaining the rating, are more mixed, shown in Table 6. Many respondents mentioned either having or knowing others who had issues with registration renewal, and its online processes including payments. A few respondents mentioned that the process was unforgiving of small errors. One respondent, for example, missed ticking a box on the renewal form, was removed from the register and experienced significant difficulties (poor communication with HCPC) getting the issue resolved.
Some respondents noted issues related to a long absence from work (e.g. maternity/illness etc.) causing them to miss registration deadlines – for some, this seems to have resulted in additional fees to renew registration. It seems rather easy for small errors (on either side) to result in registrants being removed from the register. For registrants, this can have very serious consequences and it can then be difficult and slow to resolve this, sometimes whilst on no pay. There have also been other reported instances of renewal payment collection errors [17].
Some respondents raised the issue of exclusion – certain staff groups not being included on the register - such as Clinical Technologists and Clinical Engineers. This desire for inclusion, also points to a perception of value in being on the register. One respondent raised an issue of very difficult and slow processing of registration for a candidate from outside the UK.
Overall, many respondents noted difficulties in renewing registration and issues with HCPC’s online processes. Some of these issues (e.g. website renewal problems) may have been temporary and are now resolved, but others (e.g. available routes for registration) remain to be resolved.
Table 6. Themes relating to HCPC registration & renewal.
Registration & renewal
|
Theme
|
Responses
|
Overly-complicated process
|
18
|
Website issues
|
16
|
Login-password issues
|
14
|
Easy / straightforward
|
7
|
Exclusion for some groups
|
4
|
International reg. issues
|
1
|
Communication with registrants
The survey questionnaire did not have a specific question relating to communication, therefore no specific Likert scores are available. Rather, communication was a theme which emerged in survey responses. The theme had some structure reflected in sub-themes reported in Table 7. The response numbers related to positive (1) and negative experiences (50) clearly suggest an overall experience of poor communication processes (and statistically significant at p < 0.001 for a normal proportion test).
One respondent noted dissatisfaction with the response from HCPC to their complaint and one respondent noted they had ‘entirely given up’ trying to communicate with HCPC electronically. Conversely, several respondents noted issues with letters from HCPC going to old addresses, or being very slow to arrive.
When trying to renew their registration, communication with HCPC was so difficult that two respondents noted they raised a formal complaint.
Recently in the media, there has been a concern raised by The College of Paramedics (CoP) about communications issues with HCPC - changes to the HCPC policy on the use of social media [18]. They raised particular concerns about the use of social media content and ‘historical content’ in the context of investigations of fitness-to practice.
A number of respondents noted that when they eventually got through to the HCPC, staff were helpful, so the main communication issue may relate to insufficiently resourced lines of communication (phones & email) or the need for a more focussed first point of contact e.g. some form of ‘helpdesk’ or triaging system.
Table 7. Responses relating to the theme of communication.
Communication with registrants
|
Theme/Sub-theme
|
Responses
|
Slow response times
|
19
|
Low levels of engagement with registrants
|
18
|
Ineffective-poor comms.
|
5
|
Too ‘automated’
|
4
|
Uncaring
|
4
|
Positive experience
|
1
|
Value-for-money
The score for value-for-money was a median of 2 (mean 2.3; response rate 100%) which suggests dissatisfaction. It’s also worth noting, that this is one of the few survey questions to elicit a 100% response rate – a clear signal of its importance for registrants.
Value-for-money is slightly vague term, and will vary between individuals depending on many variables, such as upbringing & environment, salary, lifestyle priorities, political persuasion, and so on. However, many of these factors should balance in a large sample. In general, it can be suggestive of satisfaction (or lack of) with a service. It also contains aspects of ‘value’ alone i.e. the value of regulation or ‘benefit’. Respondents comments covered many aspects of value. The score here is below a neutral rating. This dissatisfaction fits with other reports on HCPC’s spending, and financial processes [19, 20].
In Table 8, there is a high response suggesting fees are too expensive (and a significantly smaller number suggesting ‘good value’). This ties in with some respondents explaining that the ‘benefit’ from registration is mainly for the employer (an assurance of high quality, well-trained staff). Several respondents point to little ‘tangible’ benefit for registrants and query whether the payment model is fair and if the employer should pay registrant fees. Several respondents suggested that as registration was mandated by the employer, it was in essence an additional ‘tax’ on their employment, which was highlighted previously by Unison [21]. A comparator for payment model, are the checks preformed on potential staff who will be working with children and vulnerable adults. In general, these ‘disclosure’ checks are paid for by the employer, however the checks are not recurrent cost for each individual, but done once at recruitment.
One of HCPC’s aims is to promote ‘the value of regulation’ [22]. However, not only is there dissatisfaction with value-for-money, the second highest response suggests a lack of inherent value (or benefit) from regulation to the individual registrant. In some ways, there is a lack of balance – registrants are under increasing scrutiny, but feel there is little direct benefit, to provide balance. This also suggests that HCPC’s aim or message is not getting through to the CS profession. It’s not clear what the HCPC 2021-22 achieved milestone – ‘Embedded our registrant experiences research into employee learning and development and inductions’ has actually achieved.
Table 8. Responses relating to value for money.
Value-for-money
|
Theme
|
Responses
|
Too expensive
|
49
|
HCPC spending unclear
|
15
|
Employer should pay
|
8
|
Good value
|
5
|
Inappropriate HCPC spending
|
3
|
Tax on job
|
2
|
Discounted registration is helpful
|
1
|
In fact, HCPC’s registration fees are not high when compared to the other healthcare professions regulators. Table 9 shows data from 2021-22 for regulator annual registration fees. However, the HCPC has risen from having the lowest regulator fees in 2014-5, to its current position (9th of 13) slightly higher in the table. Perhaps more concerning than the absolute level of fees, are when large increases are proposed [23, 21, 24, 25].
Table 9. UK healthcare regulators, and their annual registration renewal fees.
Regulator
|
Role (UK) assoc. with fee level
|
Annual registration fee /£
|
General Chiropractic Council
|
Chiropractor
|
800
|
General Dental Council
|
Dentist
|
690
|
General Osteopathic Council
|
Osteopath
|
570
|
General Medical Council
|
Licensed doctor
|
420
|
Pharmaceutical Society of N. Ireland
|
Pharmacist
|
398
|
General Optical Council
|
Dispensing optician
|
360
|
General Pharmaceutical Council
|
Pharmacist
|
257
|
Nursing and Midwifery Council
|
Nurse/Midwife
|
120
|
Health and Care Professions Council
|
Registrant
|
98.24
|
Social Work England
|
Social Worker
|
90
|
Scottish Social Care Council
|
Social Worker
|
80
|
Social Care Wales
|
Social Worker
|
80
|
NI Social Care Council
|
Social Worker
|
65
|
(Fees generally reported for one role & exclude any fee reductions)
However, fees have regularly increased to current figure of £196.48 for a two-year cycle. During a consultation process in 2018, the Academy for Healthcare Clinical Scientists (AHCS) wrote an open letter to the HCPC, disputing what they felt was a disproportionate fee increase [26]. Further fee rises have also been well above the level of inflation at the time.
Figure 4. HCPC expenditure for the year 2020-21 [27].
Expenditure has arguably been even more controversial than fee increases – noted by several respondents in Table 8. A freedom of information (FOI) request in 2016 showed HCPC’s spending of £17,000 for their Christmas party [19] – which amounts to just over £76 per person. This cost was close to the annual registration fee for registrants.
In 2019, regulation of social workers in England moved from HCPC, to Social Work England. This resulted in a loss of over 100,000 registrants, and a loss in registration fee income. HCPC raised fees to compensate, but a freedom of information (FOI) request in 2020 [19] showed that even though there was an associated lowering in workload associated with the loss of 100k registrants, the HCPC had no redundancies, suggesting the loss of income was compensated mainly by the fees increase.
A significant number of respondents suggested they found HCPC’s expenditure to be unclear – details (see Figure 4) are publically available in HCPC’s annual reports.
Finally here, a number of respondents mentioned the burden of multiple registrations. Depending on job/role, some registrants require additional registrations (such as Radiation Protection Advisor), and many may also be members of more than one professional body and scientific society incurring those recurrent fees (e.g. IPEM, Society of Radiographers, Royal College Radiologists). The total financial costs of registrations & professional memberships for many CS registrants can be significant.
Relevance
This was not a direct question on the questionnaire, but emerged consistently in survey responses. Many respondents commented, in relation to the ‘value’ of regulation, about the relevance of the HCPC to them and their job/role.
Table 10. Relevance of the regulator, to Clinical Scientists and their role.
Relevance of the Regulator
|
Theme
|
Responses
|
|
|
Unclear role
|
43
|
Little relevance to my job
|
37
|
Mandatory role
|
18
|
Regulation is needed
|
6
|
Clear role
|
5
|
Some staff groups excluded
|
4
|
Other
|
2
|
The most significant responses in Table 10, were to highlight the lack of clarity about HCPC’s role, and also to note it’s lack of relevance felt by a significant proportion of respondents.
Some of this is understandable – until recently, many CS registrants will have little interaction with HCPC. They would typically get one email reminder each year to renew their registration and pay those fees, and hear little else from the HCPC. That is beginning to change, and HCPC have recently begun to send more regular, direct emails/updates to registrants.
However, for many registrants, the HCPC appears not to be clearly communicating its role, or the relevance/importance of regulation. As mentioned above, this also links in to previous mentions of the lack of any tangible benefit for registrants. Some note little more relevance other than the mandatory aspects of regulation.
Finally, relevance is also queried in relation to the limited access for some professional groups to a professional register.
Fitness-To-Practice
In the survey, 3.5% (5/143) of respondents noted some involvement with the HCPC’s Fitness to Practice service. These interactions were rated at a median of 3 (mean 2.8) suggesting neutral sentiment.
Firstly, we can immediately see the level of interaction with the FTP team is very small. CS registrants represent approx. 2% of HCPC registrants, and the level of CS referrals to FTP in 2020-21 was 0.2 % [27].
The data is a very small sample, but responses vary strongly, so it is worth digging a little further into the granularity of individual responses. Response scores were 1, 1, 2, 5, 5 – which are mainly at the extremes of the rating spectrum. The majority of respondents described poor experiences with the FTP team: errors, a process which was ‘extremely prolonged’, involved slow/poor communication, and processes which were ‘entirely opaque’. Some respondents commented that the team were not only difficult to contact, but also ‘didn’t seem to listen’. At the end of a process which involved errors from HCPC, one respondent noted were ‘no explanation, apologies or assurance that it would not happen again’, leaving the registrant ‘disillusioned’. These experiences do not fit with the HCPC’s stated goal to be a compassionate regulator, see Figure 5. Arguably it is more difficult to change a culture of behaviour and beliefs, than to publish a corporate goal or statement of vision.
Undergoing FTP investigation is a very stressful experience, and has the potential for the registrant to be struck off the register, and to lose their job if registration is mandated (e.g. NHS posts). There are many reports of the process & experience either provoking or increasing underlying mental health challenges [28 – 30].
The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) regulate the HCPC, and publish annual reviews of their performance (https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/performance-reviews) (see Table 11). HCPC performance as reported by PSA, seems to be generally higher than noted by survey respondents here. For 2022-23, aside from one area, the HCPC has scored 100% for performance, which seems at odds with these survey responses [31]. The FTP team is notable in repeatedly performing very poorly compared to most other sections of the HCPC (even though the majority of the HCPC budget goes to FTP activity, see Fig. 4). The HCPC Annual Report 2018-9 [32] highlighted the completion of the first phase of the Fitness-To-Practice Improvement Plan. This delivered “A root and branch review of this regulatory function… a restructure, tightened roles and processes and the introduction of a new Threshold Policy”, but this seems to have no impact on the performance reported by the PSA for the next few years shown in Table 11. However, the most recent data suggests improvement, and HCPC continues to develop FTP team practice [21].
There are other reports of poor experiences with this team [33, 34], and in one report the FTP team’s processes have been noted as being rather inhumane [33].
Table 11. HCPC’s performance, scored on the PSA’s Standards of good regulation.
PSA Standards of good regulation - HCPC performance scores
|
|
2019-20
|
2020-21
|
2021-22
|
2022-23
|
General Standards
|
4/5
|
4/5
|
5/5
|
5/5
|
Guidance and Standards
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
Education and Training
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
2/2
|
Registration
|
4/4
|
4/4
|
3/4
|
4/4
|
Fitness to Practise
|
1/5
|
1/5
|
1/5
|
3/5
|
Some survey respondents have noted the necessity of regulation for our profession. Regulation is an important part of public protection, but how effectively it is managed & ‘policed’ is also a concern, given it involves increased scrutiny of registrants. A topical comparator is the current dissatisfaction by a large section of the public about many other government regulators allowing seemingly poor performance to go unchecked [4, 5].
Figure 5. HCPC’s statement vision & purpose [22].
It is arguable, that registrants remain on the register as long as the HCPC allows them. Several respondents in this survey noted being removed from the register through HCPC administrative error. Removal could also happen through poor judgement/decision-making – the FTP team handle large numbers of very complex investigational cases – 1603 concluded cases for the year 2021-22 and 1024 hearings [22]. Every justice system is subject to a level of error – guilty parties can be erroneously ‘cleared’, and vice-versa. It is essential therefore, that policies & procedures relating to FTP are fit for purpose - that the FTP team work effectively and humanely, and that there is genuine & effective governance of HCPC to ensure accountability. In this survey, some respondents seem to be saying that currently this is not the case.
Other interactions with HCPC
There were a small set of responses collected (18). They were mainly respondents who explained they had to follow things up with the HCPC (due to slowness in response). The overall score was unsurprisingly low: median 2, mean 2.1. Three of the interactions involved the submission of a formal complaint.
Overall performance
The score for overall performance was a median of 3 (median 2.7; response rate 90%) which suggests neutral sentiment.
Respondents were not asked directly to explain this overall performance rating – themes were extracted from the questionnaire as a whole, and are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Responses related to overall performance of HCPC.
Overall performance
|
Theme
|
Respondents
|
Slow response
|
13
|
Poor handling of issues
|
4
|
Efficient/professional
|
3
|
Errors
|
2
|
Staff not proactive
|
1
|
Positive experiences rank in third place, but are significantly lower than negative experiences of slow response times.
Sentiment
In assessing overall experience, we can also review the auto-coded overall survey sentiment scores generated in the NVivo software. These scores are shown in Table 13. There is a stronger negative sentiment than positive for HCPC performance. The majority rating is moderately negative. The normal test for a single proportion (106/159), suggests the negative and positive differences have statistical significance with p < 0.001. Again, this seems to conflict with PSA rating of HCPC performance.
Table 13. NVivo-generated sentiment analysis scores.
Survey Sentiment scores
|
Themes
|
Responses
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Very positive
|
43
|
106
|
Moderately positive
|
63
|
Moderately negative
|
103
|
159
|
Very negative
|
56
|
|
|
|
Suggestions for improvement
Following the question relating to overall performance, respondents were invited to suggest things which might improve their rating for HCPC’s performance. These suggestions were also combined with those in the final catch-all question in the survey. These suggestion themes are shown in Table 14.
As expected, these very much reflect earlier comments and themes.
Table 14. Potential improvements suggested/requested by survey respondents.
Suggested improvements
|
Themes
|
Respondents
|
|
|
Lower fees
|
17
|
More proactivity/engagement with our profession
|
15
|
Different payment model
|
8
|
More transparency of activity & process
|
8
|
More responsive communication
|
6
|
Improved accountability/governance
|
5
|
Better (personal) data handling
|
4
|
Additional routes for registration
|
4
|
Choice of regulator
|
4
|
Simpler & more reliable processes eg renewals
|
4
|
Tangible registrant benefits
|
3
|
More professional ‘relevance’
|
3
|
FTP efficiency
|
2
|
Other
|
1
|
Table 14 shows quite a wide range of suggestions, and these point to some very interesting aspects of the experiences of Clinical Scientists with HCPC.
It’s probably no surprise that the greatest concern is costs, especially in the current cost-of-living crisis. The recent HCPC consultation to increase fees [35] seems particularly tone-deaf and has caused concern across the professions [24, 25].
The responses are not, however, always querying high absolute cost, but more the value/benefit of HCPC regulation to registrants. Many responses expressed doubt as to the added value & relevance of HCPC registration for them. They seem to point to a general lack of tangible benefit from their fees. Perhaps, given the costs and levels of scrutiny, registrants want some definite benefit to balance the scales.
A significant number of responses pointed out that the main benefits of registration are for the public, and for employers – but that it is the registrants who pay for registration. Many queries why this should be, and whether there should be a different payment model, where for example employers pay. The HCPC is a statutory body, its funding model will have been designed/decided upon by government, and may be unlikely to change. However, there are a variety of potential regulation models [36], and so change is possible but it would require sufficient support from government and stake-holders.
Similarly, some respondents felt that the HCPC’s unusual position of regulating a large swathe of healthcare professions was not necessarily helpful for their profession or others. Data from the HCPC suggests (see Figure 4) that the majority of spending relates to FTP activity. Data also points to Clinical Scientists having very low levels of FTP investigation compared to others in HCPC [37]. This suggests that a significant proportion of CS registrant fees are used to investigate other professions. Its possible (perhaps simplistically) that if, like many other healthcare professions such as doctors & dentists who’s regulator is concerned only with that single profession, if CSs were regulated separately, their registrant fees may be reduced. This model of single-profession regulation may also mitigate against other disadvantages of the HCPC’s practice, such as the ‘generic’ policies aiming to apply to a pool of 15 professions.
Communication and response times are obviously an issue of concern for registrants, and improvements are needed based on the low satisfaction levels reported here. This is also linked to a wish for increased engagement with the CS profession.
Some responses suggested they would be comforted by increased accountability/governance of HCPC including improved FTP efficiency. Certainly, there is a clear governance path via PSA, up to the Health Secretary. However, this does not offer a route for individual complaints to be raised and addressed. Unlike complaints from the public in other areas, there is no recourse to an ombudsman for registrants. The only option for individual registrants, is the submission of a formal complaint to the HCPC itself, which is dealt with internally. Comments from survey respondents suggest this process does not guarantee satisfaction. Indeed, one of the respondents who mentioned submitting a complaint, made it clear they remained unhappy with HCPC’s response. Overall, there seems to be a lack of clear & effective advocacy for registrants.
FTP processes affect a comparatively small number of CS registrants, compared to other professions. However, it seems clear that the majority of those who have interacted with the FTP team have had poor experiences, and respondents have suggested improvements are needed. The reason for FTP investigations, is protection of staff and the public. If processes are slow, and investigations prolonged, or decisions flawed, the public may be exposed to increased levels of risk, as healthcare practitioners who may be lacking in competence continue to practice. The data in Table 11 shows concerning but improving trends in FTP performance levels.
Finally, improvement in terms of additional registration routes for Engineers & Technical staff were also suggested.
Summary
This report presents findings from a survey aimed at collecting a snap-shot of the experiences of Clinical Scientists with their regulator, and their perception of the quality of that regulation performance.
Overall survey sentiment scores showed a majority of moderately negative responses. Many survey comments relate not only to current issues, but to previous problems and controversial issues [18]. It seems that many respondents have at some point lost confidence and trust in the HCPC, and survey responses suggest there has not been enough engagement and work done by HCPC to repair and rebuild this trust.
Fees/value: In the midst of a cost of living crisis, costs are a large concern for many. The HCPC fees are neither the highest not lowest amongst the healthcare regulators. Spending is transparent, and details can be found in the annual reports.
Many feel there is little tangible value from HCPC registration, and that the employer should pay the costs of registration, where registration is mandated by the job. Offering some form of tangible benefit from registration would be helpful.
Many responses refer to previous issues, errors and shortcomings of HCPC – sometimes many years ago. Many respondent registrants seem at some point to have lost trust / confidence in the HCPC. The responses show registrants have not forgotten and suggest not enough has been done by the HCPC, to rebuild that trust.
Policy & Engagement: Many respondents have suggested that they feel there should be more proactive engagement from HCPC with the profession. Most respondents are not familiar with or felt the HCPC policies are relevant/important to them.
Registration & renewals: Survey data showed moderate satisfaction with registration processes for the majority of respondents. However, many respondents highlighted recent problems with registration renewal. Hopefully those recent issues have been resolved and won’t reoccur. Some respondents also noted a lack of registration route for engineering & technical healthcare staff.
CPD: Most respondents seem reasonably happy with the CPD processes. This generated the highest ratings in the survey.
Communication: This scored poorly and many respondents suggests there needs to be improved levels of communication in terms of response times and access to support.
FTP & Accountability: The CS profession experiences low levels of interaction with the FTP service. However, those interactions which were recorded in the survey, show some poor experiences for registrants. There also seems to be a lack of advocacy/route for complaints about HCPC from individual registrants. There may need to be more engagement between registrants and their professional body regarding HCPC performance, and more proactivity from the stake-holder, IPEM.