# Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey

## TL;DR

A 2022 survey of UK clinical scientists in physical sciences found mostly negative views about their regulator's performance, highlighting issues with communication and fitness to practice.

## Contribution

This study provides the first detailed survey of Clinical Scientists' (Physical Sciences) experiences with the Health and Care Professions Council, revealing significant dissatisfaction.

## Key findings

- Survey sentiment was significantly more negative than positive regarding regulator performance.
- Respondents rated Continuous Professional Development audit as median 4, while other areas like fitness to practice were rated poorly.
- Clinical Scientists rated their regulator more negatively than other assessments by the Professional Standards Authority.

## Abstract

In healthcare, regulation of professions is an important tool to protect the public. With increasing regulation however, professions find themselves under increasing scrutiny. Recently there has also been considerable concern with regulator performance, with high profile reports pointing to cases of inefficiency and bias. Whilst reports have often focused on large staff groups, such as doctors, in the literature there is a dearth of data on the experiences of smaller professional groups such Clinical Scientists with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council.

This article reports the findings of a survey from Clinical Scientists (Physical Sciences modality) about their experiences with their regulator, and their perception of the quality and safety of that regulation.

Between July–October 2022, a survey was conducted via the Medical Physics and Engineering mail-base, open to all medical physicists & engineers. Questions covered typical topics of registration, communication, audit and fitness to practice. The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions. Likert scoring, and thematic analysis were used to assess the quantitative and qualitative data.

Of 146 responses recorded, analysis was based on 143 respondents. Overall survey sentiment was significantly more negative than positive, in terms of regulator performance (negative responses 159; positive 106; significant at p < 0.001). Continuous Professional Development audit was rated median 4; other topics were rated as neutral (fitness to practice, policies & procedures); and some as poor (value).

The Clinical Scientist (Physical Sciences) professional registrants rated the performance of their regulator more negatively than other reported assessments (by the Professional Standards Authority). Survey respondents suggested a variety of performance aspects, such as communication and fitness to practice, would benefit from improvement. Indications from this small dataset, suggest a larger survey of HCPC registrants would be useful.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-10956-7.