Undertakings in Fitness to Practise: A Double-Edged Sword?
Undertakings have become an increasingly common tool in fitness to practise proceedings across various healthcare regulators. Whilst ostensibly designed to protect the public, some argue they provide a means for practitioners to sidestep a formal impairment finding. This article examines the dual nature of undertakings and their implications for public protection and professional accountability.
The Purpose of Undertakings
Undertakings are agreements between a regulatory body and a healthcare professional regarding the practitioner’s future conduct or practice. They’re typically offered as an alternative to a full fitness to practise hearing when case examiners believe there are concerns about a practitioner’s fitness to practise, but that these concerns can be addressed through restrictions or requirements on their practice.
Public Protection vs. Avoiding Impairment Findings
Whilst undertakings can serve a valuable public protection function, critics argue they may also provide a means for practitioners to avoid a formal finding of impairment at a final hearing. This raises questions about transparency and accountability in the regulatory process.
Benefits of Undertakings
– Swift resolution of cases
– Tailored restrictions on practice
– Ongoing monitoring and review
Potential Drawbacks
– Lack of public scrutiny
– Avoidance of formal sanctions
– Reduced deterrent effect
– Prematurely offered without sufficient evidence
Balancing Act for Regulators
Regulators must carefully balance the efficient resolution of cases with the need for public accountability and confidence in the profession. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), for example, emphasises that fitness to practise is about current impairment and future risk, not punishing past mistakes.
The Path Forward
Key factors in improving the use of undertakings:
- Proper full and early investigation
- Improved timeliness post-investigation to hearing
The Unrepresented Practitioner’s Dilemma
Unrepresented practitioners may accept undertakings prematurely or unnecessarily, potentially impacting their professional standing when a more favourable outcome might have been achievable with proper representation or a fuller understanding of the regulatory process.
Conclusion
Undertakings occupy a complex position in fitness to practise proceedings. Whilst they can be an effective tool for protecting the public and allowing practitioners to remediate issues without full suspension, they also raise questions about accountability and transparency in professional regulation.
As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, it’s crucial that the use of undertakings is carefully monitored and evaluated to ensure they strike the right balance between efficiency, public protection, and maintaining public confidence in healthcare professions.