A colleague from Scotland has done some hard work on the statistics of the HPC and has offered them for circulation. He asks that if you want to reproduce them, please do so in full to avoid misrepresenation:
For the period 2007-2008:
• The HPC’s operating expenditure was £11.58m, of which payroll costs amounted to £4.08m (35.3%), legal expenses £2.27m (19.6%), facilities management £1.13m (9.8%) and “partners” (assessors and other professionals) £1.11m (9.6%).
• The HPC employed 105 full time equivalent staff, costing £2.82m in wages and salaries, representing an average salary of £26,770.
• Considering allegations about the fitness to practise of registrants cost £3.76m (32.5% of overall expenditure).
• Of the 424 total allegations made against registrants, 108 (25.5%) came from the public, compared with 171 (40.3%) from employers and 63 (14.9%) from the HPC itself.
• 299 allegations (70.5%) of the total were considered, taking an average of 32 weeks before a case was heard by an Investigating Panel.
• 63 (58.3%) of the allegations from the public were heard, and only 18 (28.6%) of these allegations were found to have a case to answer.
• Each allegation with a case to answer which came from the public represented an HPC expenditure of £643k.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Hello Janet
Thanks for this. My head is spinning at the figures. However – and I hope this is helpful rather than undermining – I would like it to be known that I confronted the CHRE with the figures published in
http://ipnosis.postle.net/pages/HPCPerspective0709.htm
(See http://www.bringbackourjoy.com/?cat=7)
I received a reply which entirely skirted the issue. No mention was made of the statistics. With depressing predictability, the CHRE reiterated that they are “unable to investigate individual concerns”. They state “we will take account of the circumstances of your complaint” and “we will take into account the issues that you have raised in our audit of the initial stages of the regulator’s fitness to practices processes”.
No reference was made to the figures I quoted in my letter, and to how these highlighted the unfitness for purpose (witness our continuing distress) and poor public protection and value for money to the taxpayer.
I suggest that the healthcare and human costs of traumatic “no case to answer” outcomes to complaints made by the public are added to the already exorbitant costs of the few “case to answer” outcomes, for a more accurate picture of the enormity of the HPC’s values and procedures’ really quite spectacular inadequacy.
(n.b: despite having had my child seriously harmed by an HPC-registered music therapist – see www.bringbackourjoy.com - I remain committed to apologies and practitioners’ learning from their damaging practices’ effects on members of the public – the determinedly antagonistic position is entirely the HPC’s, and it offers no positive solutions to anybody, registrants or public.)
Post a Comment