Wednesday, 7 April 2010

Invitation to HPC registrants & co

During the last year several people (registrants of the HPC and their clients, patients and employees), have contacted me to tell me about their dreadful experiences with the FTP processes.

One woman was being 'tried' for the third time for the same 'crime' and was well beyond the end of her tether. The patient had complained to the NHS who had listened and decided there was no case, then to the Quality Care Commission, who had listened and found there was no case to answer, and then to the HPC who had ... put their machinery into operation, heeding neither the NHS nor the QCC, nor even their common sense, only to find, months and months later, that ... there was no case to answer. Three times! For exactly the same complaint!

Another case was of a very well known and respected woman who had herself raised a question about the staff in an agency where she once been contracted to work. This irked the agency who found their way to complain about her in their turn. After months and months of work, and loads and loads of money, the case was finally dismissed.

There is a complaint from an individual against one of his NHS bosses. This boss turns out to be a senior member of the profession, a regular visitor to the HPC. The complainant was (therefore?) told there was no case... However, he continues to hold onto the logic of his case, and writes to the HPC regularly. He is trying to call them to account, and is pursuing his argument tenaciously.

Another woman has been trying to get a response from a registrant whose work damaged the relationship she had with her son. The HPC have no resources to offer her, and can only add to her increasing distress.

There are more. Those caught up in the FTP process are very unwilling to tell their story in public for fear of retribution from the HPC. Others are so immersed in the turmoil that writing about it is the last thing on their minds. People I've spoken to after the hearing is over usually just want to disappear back into their lives and try to rebuild their relationships and routines.

This is simply terrible. What is there to be done?

Many people exclaim: it's a waste of tax payers money!

But before dismissing this as untrue, it's really worth thinking about this in detail. The fee that the registrants pay must be agreed in parliament and passed by law. This fee is then levied exactly like a tax. However, the familiar cry: No Taxation Without Representation is not heeded here. The registrants of the HPC cannot vote on the way the money is spent, and cannot call the officials to account for wasting the money they have paid them. It looks more and more like a stealth tax, and one without representation!

A few people have suggested that I open up this blog to other writers and make sections for each of the different professional groups (15 of them at present in the HPC). If you know someone who would like to write an entry, do encourage them to get in touch (click my name in the Contributors Side Panel at the bottom of the list to find my email address). My aim here is to expose the mechanisms of harm, and to show through actual examples what is really going on. It is this kind of real evidence that can convince people gently, and that can even produce a pacifying effect to the otherwise pernicious experience. It's an appeal to natural justice, with the aim of learning from the mistake (no matter who made it) and of making things better for others in the future. At the moment, the HPC is wasting opportunities for learning, and turning local spats into major incidents; this is very negative overall.

In the meantime, anyone can post a comment on any of the articles already here, and these comments can be anonymous. I am more than happy to engage in a conversation, if you are willing to take the time.

Janet

3 comments:

Paola said...

Hello Janet

excellent post, as usual. It really does seem that the HPC is bad news all round. I am quite incensed that members of the public continue to be excluded from the debate, and their feedback is not valued. I have put together a (hopelessly amateurish) video to give a voice to my concerns about the HPC. It's here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/HopeInChange

I hope in future to be able to add more videos with more details: they will be on my youtube channel HopeInChange.

Huge thanks again for doing all this for us: it's hugely helpful.

Paola

RodneyD said...

I think it would have been helpful to have provided more details on the 3 cases you mention.

We don't know what the allegations were and the issues related to in each case.

Just because there was a finding of no case to answer doesn't mean to say that a full FTP investigation wasn't merited.

I'm also interested in the evidence you have to make the following statement:

"Those caught up in the FTP process are very unwilling to tell their story in public for fear of retribution from the HPC."

This is a rather extreme statement, the HPC is after all a regulator and not a secret police organisation.

As for the registration fee being a 'tax' this is standard practise amongst regulators. All doctors have to pay a registration fee to the GMC in order to practise and I'm sure it's the same with nurses and dentists.

Many of your posts are very much 100% against the HPC. There are many benefits that regulation brings to medical professions, but the benefits of regulation are rarely highlighted in your posts.

It would be interesting to hear what you expect from a regulatory body and what its role and remit should be.

Janet Haney said...

Hello Rodney, you have raised lots of very interesting questions - thank you v much.

Yes, there are more details of each of these cases, you are right. I am about to post a new entry which takes one of them a bit further and contextualises it with a debate current in the media (The Mystery of FTP). I hope you will be able to read it and comment on it too. Then more to come on the others.

Allegations are posted on the HPC web in the weeks before and throughout the hearing. If there is no case to answer they disappear as the Registrant rarely wants them hanging around for all to see.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'full investigation'. I wonder whether you know the process. It begins with bits of paper and a small distant panel reading about people and places that they know nothing about. If they think something might be happening out there, they engage an HPC Solicitor (paid whether they win or lose) whose 'investigations' are not objective, but done to build the case AGAINST. The process is not investigatory, but adversary.

The 'evidence' I have that people don't want to speak about the case afterwards is the conversations and email exchanges with them.

What kind of an organisation is the HPC? You say 'it is a regulator' as if we all know what this is. But the HPC is a new phenomenon created by a piece of secondary legislation in the last months of 2001. What is it? On what grounds does it rule and regulate? It has no established system of knowledge to draw on, no mountain of experience to grow wise on, no system of voting and debating to keep itself sharp. It has no carefully worked out position on the subject, it has not had to fight to get it's ideas validated, there are no mechanisms or debating chambers with which to hold it to account.

The HPC is an organisation entirely staffed by administrators - or as Marc Seale (CEO) repeatedly put it at a recent conference: "I am a boring bureaucrat in a grey suit, I do what the government tell me".

These administrators recruit a few people from the professional groups who then work neither inside nor outside the organisation. This is potentially a huge problem as it distorts the power in the field itself, and cannot be held to account for its decisions (there is no vote, no democratic principle - the HPC appoint and dismiss).

What is being regulated? Usually the HPC and its supporters brandish a slogan: 'to protect the public', but leave the danger obscured and unspecified - there has NEVER been any proper work done to establish the base line of danger represented by the skilled and professional class in this country. What can it possibly be?

What are the mechanisms available to the HPC to save the public from this unspecified danger? It has a large database, conducts randomised spot checks on a few filing cabinets, and stages the odd show trial.

I am sure you are right that some benefit from this kind of regulation, but there are questions about the longer term and wider effects. I know that some people are pleased to have access to jobs in the NHS. For others, it seems to be useful for advertising, and for persuading the public to trust them - giving them automatic status and respectability. Others (those who aspire to positions of power in the new professional organisations) speak of the access they now get to the corridors of power - rubbing shoulders with government ministers.

For me proper regulation has to be linked to reality, conducted through experience and with wisdom, and must not advance by pretending that thousands of people are potentially guilty of some vague and unspecified 'crime'.

There is more to be said on this, no doubt!