What social workers can learn from misconduct cases

The General Social Care Council has published analysis of 265 cases of misconduct to inform the sector about issues which could be addressed through training and supervision, by David Rowland

The General Social Care Council (GSCC) is today publishing a report, Regulating Social Workers, setting out what it has learned over the past 11 years as the national regulator for social workers in England. During this period it has amassed a large amount of data about the profession and has learnt a significant amount about the issues facing the sector.

A key part of this report is an analysis of the types of misconduct which have been found by the GSCC’s panels and which have led to action being taken against registered social workers.

In publishing this report we are conscious that the social work profession has recently been subject to intense scrutiny and often unwarranted criticism from certain parts of the media and we are keen not to fuel this criticism.

In fact, a key finding of the report is that only a tiny proportion of social work registrants are complained about (1.1% in the past year) and an even smaller proportion (0.3% over the past eight years) are found to have committed misconduct.

Instead, the aim of publishing an analysis of 265 cases where misconduct was found is to inform the sector about those issues which could be addressed through training and supervision.

The findings of misconduct break down into issues related to the competence of the social worker – “poor practice” – and other forms of “unacceptable behaviour”.

Unacceptable behaviour consists of such things as acts of dishonesty or misleading behaviour, theft and fraud, as well as forming or seeking to form an “inappropriate relationship” with a service user or a service users’ family member. Interestingly, “unacceptable behaviour” occurred in 80% (214) of the 265 cases of misconduct.

Out of this, the most common type of misconduct was dishonest or misleading behaviour which occurred in 45% (120) of the cases, followed by inappropriate relationships which occurred in 20% (52) of cases. Due to the high prevalence of inappropriate relationships in misconduct cases the GSCC recently published guidance on professional boundaries for social workers.

In contrast, findings of “poor practice” misconduct were much less common, occurring on their own in just 19% (or 51) of the cases. Poor practice misconduct includes such things as poor safeguarding, a failure to notify and share information appropriately, breaches of confidentiality and poor record keeping.

Out of these, the most common form of poor practice misconduct was poor safeguarding which in general terms involved the social worker failing to follow the procedures necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of people who use services. This includes a failure to develop a care plan for a service user; take appropriate steps to prevent harm; risk assess situations adequately or to ensure that service users needs were met. It also includes a failure to arrange meetings or complete visits to service users, to respond appropriately to information or to seek relevant information in relation to cases.

Employers are often best placed to deal with some of these “poor practice” issues and action by the national regulator is only required where there are substantial concerns about the social workers’ continued suitability to practise. This perhaps explains why the majority of the GSCC’s focus was on “unacceptable behaviour” issues.

Another interesting finding is that the GSCC often took action where the behaviour or actions of social workers were not work related (18% or 48 cases) or where neither a child nor an adult were harmed or put at risk of harm as result of the actions of a social worker (31% or 82).

An example of a case where neither an adult nor child was harmed or put at risk of harm would be an instance of benefit fraud and an example of behaviour which was not work related would be an instance of physical assault outside of work.

The fact that the GSCC took action in these types of cases reveals that it was concerned with upholding public confidence in the profession. If the social work profession does not have the trust and confidence of service users or the public because of concerns about their integrity and probity this undermines the ability of social workers to do their jobs.

Through taking action in all of these cases the GSCC has sought to ensure that the high standards of the profession are maintained, that public confidence in the profession is upheld and that the public and people who use services are protected.

The GSCC will close on the 31 July and the regulation of the social work profession will transfer to the Health and Care Professions Council.

David Rowland is head of policy and research at the General Social Care Council