HPC on social workers regulation: We consider every case differently

As the Health Professions Council takes over regulation of social workers, how will it differ from the General Social Care Council? By Dr Anna van der Gaag

New research released by Opinion Matters shows that nearly half of sampled providers do not check that their social worker is registered. Almost a quarter did not know social workers needed to be registered to practice.

These statistics are not surprising, but provide an interesting picture for us as the new statutory regulator of social workers. As, today, social workers in England will be now be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council instead of the GSCC, which closed yesterday.

Our role is now to hold a public register of social care professionals who are fit to practise and we actively encourage service users and others to check that their professional is registered.

We believe that social workers in England play an important role in our society, so what does this regulatory change mean for social workers, service users and employers of social workers in England?

From today, social workers in England will have to meet a wider range of standards that we set for them, just as we set standards for other health and care professionals such as occupational therapists and psychologists.

They are designed to ensure public trust and confidence in the professions, and we will continue to work with the social work community to continue to drive up standards.

A key change for social workers is that our legislation gives us stronger and more widespread powers if we need to take action against a social worker who fails to adhere to HCPC standards.

The GSCC’s legislation meant that they considered complaints against social workers in England using a conduct model – focusing on whether registrants’ behaviour were a breach of the code.

We operate a fitness to practise model instead. We consider whether someone’s ability to practise safely and effectively is impaired because of misconduct, a lack of competence, or their health.

The key difference is that our model enables us to consider concerns which arise about a social worker’s competence, and whether a lack of competence means that their fitness to practise is impaired.

We also have a wider range of sanctions, including suspensions and conditions of practice orders. As well as this we have powers to demand information from employers and others if needed for a hearing – something that was not available under GSCC. It means that process are not held up because people may not be co-operating.

Our system is not designed to simply inflict punishment. Our main focus is on public protection. We know that sometimes professionals make mistakes that are unlikely to be repeated. This may mean that the person’s overall fitness to practise is unlikely to be impaired.

We consider every case individually. However, a professional’s fitness to practise is likely to be impaired if the evidence shows that they:

• Were dishonest, committed fraud or abused someone’s trust

• Exploited a vulnerable person
• Failed to respect service users’ rights to make choices about their own care
• Have health problems which they have not dealt with, and which may affect the safety of service users
• Hid mistakes or tried to block our investigation
• Had an improper relationship with a service use
• Carried out reckless or deliberately harmful acts
• Seriously or persistently failed to meet standards
• Were involved in sexual misconduct or indecency
• Have a substance abuse or misuse problem
• Have been violent or displayed threatening behaviour

People sometimes make mistakes or have a one-off instance of unprofessional conduct or behaviour. Our processes do not mean that we will pursue every isolated or minor mistake. However, if a professional is found to fall below our standards, we will take action.

Dr Anna van der Gaag is chair of the Health Professions Council.