Regulation of healthcare professionals

This topic covers the regulation of healthcare professionals working in England and Wales. Each profession is regulated by its own regulatory body which has its own statutory regulatory regime and enabling legislation. There are similarities between each professional regulator’s investigative powers, sanctions and appeal mechanisms, but each operate independently. The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) for Health and Social Care has responsibility for overseeing the UK’s ten health and social care regulators.

This topic concentrates on the nine regulators responsible for England and Wales:

  1. General Medical Council (GMC)

  2. General Dental Council (GDC)

  3. Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)

  4. Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)

  5. General Optical Council (GOC)

  6. Social Work England (SWE)

  7. General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC)

  8. General Osteophatchic Council (GOsC)

  9. General Chiropractic Council (GCC)

and their review by the PSA.

This subtopic focuses on the fitness to practise proceedings for each of the regulators. Much of the case law and principles are common across the regulators. Each of the individual regulators have their own statutory fitness to practise regime which is covered in specific detail in the individual

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents