by Allan Norman
Dame Denise Platt has commented here on the prominence of public protection on the GMC's website, contrasting that with the GSCC's website. I should like to make a different comparison.
The GMC's websites includes a searchable database of its regulatory
decisions. If you analyse these, as I have, you will find the GMC far
less trigger-happy with its suspension powers than the GSCC (see BASW Press Release, 'Arrogant regulators and their unfair treatment of social workers'). Doctors,
unless they lack the ability or insight to practice safely, are
frequently allowed the period while charges are pending to prove and to
develop themselves. Equally, final outcomes may also be less draconian
for a doctor than a social worker.
The CHRE report on the GSCC latches onto one of the key reasons why this might be so, and in recommending a similar approach for social workers, opens up the possibility that we may better protect the public by being less tough. It notes most healthcare regulators focus on fitness to practice rather than misconduct.
Within the GSCC regulatory regime, misconduct is central, and this is problematic. Why?
The common thread in what I would like the council to do is to take a risk-based approach to regulation. The focus on fitness to practise will - hopefully - be a move towards more risk-based regulation. At least, it allows practitioners to say, "yes, my practice fell short, let's explore how short, of perfection", and the regulator to say, "this much, so this is what is needed to improve your practice, we'll impose conditions and review and see how your practice improves."
Less tough, more realistic, better protection for the public, and social workers are treated more like the professionals we truly are.
The CHRE report on the GSCC latches onto one of the key reasons why this might be so, and in recommending a similar approach for social workers, opens up the possibility that we may better protect the public by being less tough. It notes most healthcare regulators focus on fitness to practice rather than misconduct.
Within the GSCC regulatory regime, misconduct is central, and this is problematic. Why?
I would therefore welcome a 'fitness to practice' regime as advocated in the recent report. But I do so for more than technical reasons. Primarily, it is because it is more in keeping with risk-based regulation. When I spoke out about the GSCC going through a lengthy and arduous conduct hearing for someone who had no intention to practice as a social worker and was content to receive the ultimate sanction of being struck off, Mike Wardle disagreed with me. More recently in contrast, another of my cases has highlighted the unwillingness of the Council to examine the conduct of students at all.
- misconduct is defined with reference to the Codes of Practice, and they use broad phrases, like "working openly and co-operatively with colleagues", "maintaining clear and accurate records", "being reliable and dependable". The breadth of what might constitute misconduct means most of us are either guilty of it, or say, "there but for the grace of God..."
- a finding of misconduct carries connotations of guilty misbehaviour, and so is more stigmatising than one of unfitness to practice. It is common for the GMC to pass straight over the primary allegations ("admitted and found proven") and go straight on to a discussion of the consequences for practice.
- sanction is determined with reference to misconduct. In the GMC regime, it is possible - and frequently happens - that the facts having been proven, it is determined that fitness to practice is not impaired. It is easier to reach such a conclusion than that the facts do not constitute misconduct, so there is a different starting point for sanction.
The common thread in what I would like the council to do is to take a risk-based approach to regulation. The focus on fitness to practise will - hopefully - be a move towards more risk-based regulation. At least, it allows practitioners to say, "yes, my practice fell short, let's explore how short, of perfection", and the regulator to say, "this much, so this is what is needed to improve your practice, we'll impose conditions and review and see how your practice improves."
Less tough, more realistic, better protection for the public, and social workers are treated more like the professionals we truly are.
Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.
I agree with Allan's thoughtful comments but for such an approach to really affect the practice of social workers it also needs a commensurate sea change in how some employers approach "gross misconduct" and the subsequent referral to the GSCC.
We all make mistakes in whatever walk of life we work. However practice benefits most when employers become truly "learning organisations" in which mistakes are an opportunity for all to learn.
Ironically most disciplinary procedures emphasise their role is to help staff learn, not to punish them, but in practice too many social workers end up being punished by lengthy suspensions and subsequent disciplinary action when it is quite unclear who benefits from such action. That's been Aspect's experience and I know BASW and UNISON experience is similar.
This is not to say social workers should never be disciplined, or even dismissed, but it is to say that punishment seems too often to be the favoured option, often in a context when resources are a major cause of practitioner shortcomings and where good professional supervision is notable by its absence.
The current political climate makes senior managers fearful of not seeming "strong" whilst my own experience of Member (ie councillor ) appeal panels is utterly depressing.
I know many Community Care readers are scornful, with good reason, of some (many) aspects of the GSCC conduct procedures, but this is an important discussion and I agree with Allan Norman's approach.
Tight measures are only going to alienate more people from the profession which will most certainly lead to a shortage of social care staff. When that happens people will complain about that and wonder why it has happened.
Systems Thinkers argue that roughly 95% of performance is a consequence of the system and only 5% is down to the individual.
The design of the work is caused by how managers think about work and how it should be managed and organized. This thinking causes things like targets, policies and procedures, legislation codes of practice. They tend to be things that are believed to control and motivate workers or control quality. The truth is that these systems conditions actually make performance worse.
The organisations that set the systems conditions are well-intentioned but tend to be blind to the faults in their own prescriptions. They are thinking hierarchically. This means that the GSCC are probably part of the cause of poor performance, but believe that the problem is workers not following the rules rather than an understanding that the rules are the problem.
So we are caught in a 'double-bind'.
The governing body blames workers for not following their rules.
A
V
The rules/control mechanisms are the things that are causing the system to perform poorly.
A
V
Because the governing body doesn't recognize this, they push control harder (get harsher) and blame workers for not following the things that are causing the problem
No learning takes place, and bad feeling and bitterness escalates