Commitment 4: Where risks are caused by system and process failures, we’ll concentrate on the action we can take to help resolve the underlying issues
The evidence is clear that even one-off events or errors are usually caused by multiple contributing factors coming together.1 Wrongly blaming an individual won't change these factors, won't stop underlying issues happening again and ultimately won't help keep people safe.
Where systemic issues prevent nurses, midwives and nursing associates from delivering safe care, the system should be accountable. Taking action against an individual in these circumstances doesn't lead to a culture of openness and learning, may give false assurance, direct focus away from a wider problem, and cause a future public protection gap.
Genuine mistakes and errors caused by problems in the working environment are unlikely to be issues that call into question someone's fitness to practise. If the evidence shows that a similarly qualified nurse, midwife or nursing associate would have done the same thing this may indicate the root cause of the incident is not the person's fitness to practise. Examples of this could be not completing a task when staffing levels meant it would have been impossible for anyone to do it or giving out the wrong medication when the root cause was actually because of how the medication was stored or labelled.
If we know that problems in the working environment are the real source of risk, our safeguarding responsibilities may mean we'll need to work with other agencies or professionals that are better placed than us to put these problems right. This is likely to involve sharing information, which we'll always do in a proportionate way that allows us to meet our legal responsibilities and objectives.
Where the information shows system issues contributed to an incident but the actions of the nurse, midwife or nursing associate still raise serious concerns about their fitness to practise, we may need to share information as well as take action to address the fitness to practise concerns.
1 This is often explained in the ‘Swiss Cheese’ model developed by Professor James Reason. See Reason JT, Carthey J, de Leval MR. Diagnosing “vulnerable system syndrome”: an essential prerequisite to effective risk management BMJ Quality & Safety 2001;10:ii21-ii25.
- Download
- Email Page
- Last Updated: 29/03/2021
Want to download and print whole sections of this FtP library? Visit the downloads page.
FtP library
-
Understanding Fitness to Practise
- Aims and principles for fitness to practise
- Allegations we consider
- How we determine seriousness
- Why we screen cases
- When we use interim orders
- Investigations
- Examining cases
- How we manage cases
- Meetings and hearings
- Resolving cases by agreement
- What sanctions are and when we might use them
-
Taking account of context
- Taking account of context - overview
- 1: We’ll approach cases on the basis that most people referred to us are normally safe
- 2: We’ll seek to build an accurate picture about the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s practising history
- 3: We’ll always carefully consider evidence of discrimination, victimisation, bullying or harassment
- 4: Where risks are caused by system and process failures, we’ll concentrate on the action we can take to help resolve the underlying issues
- 5: In cases where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate was required to use their professional judgement we’ll respond proportionately
- 6: Evidence of steps the nurse, midwife or nursing associate has taken to address serious concerns caused by a gap in knowledge or training or personal context factors
- 7: We’ll always look into whether group norms or culture influenced an individual’s behaviour before taking action
- 8: Where an incident has occurred because of cultural problems, we’ll concentrate on taking action to minimise the risk of the same thing happening again
- What context factors we think are important to know about when considering a case
- Our culture of curiosity
- Decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Disclosure Scotland
- Insight and strengthened practice
- Engaging with your case
-
Screening
-
Our overall approach
- Our overall approach - overview
-
The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions
- The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions - overview
- Do we have a written concern about a nurse, midwife or nursing associate on our register?
- Is there evidence of a serious concern that could require us to take regulatory action to protect the public
- Is there clear evidence to show that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is currently fit to practise?
- Clinical advice
- Referrals to other regulators
- Referrers that wish to remain anonymous
- Whistleblowing
- A decision not to take any further action at this time
- Determining the regulatory concern
- Cases that may involve incorrect or fraudulent entry
-
Our overall approach
- Interim Orders
- Investigations
- Case Examiners
-
Preparing for the FtP Committee
- Reviewing cases after they are referred to the FtPC
-
Drafting charges
- Why do we have guidance on charges?
- Jargon buster
- General approach
- How a charge becomes final
- Practical drafting issues
- Particular features of misconduct charging
- Drafting charges in health cases
- Other fitness to practise charges
- Multiple allegations
- Drafting charges in incorrect or fraudulent entry cases
- Documents panels use when deciding cases
- Gathering further evidence after the investigation
- Disclosure
- Notice of our hearings and meetings
-
Case management
- Hearing fitness to practise allegations together
- Telephone conferences
- Preliminary meetings
- Considering cases at meetings and hearings
- Removal by Agreement
- Cancelling hearings
- Constitution of panels
- Proceeding with hearings when the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is absent
- Case management during hearings
- Hearings in private and in public
- When we postpone or adjourn hearings
- Supporting people to give evidence in hearings
-
FtP Committee decision making
- Impairment
- Consensual panel determination
- Offering no evidence
- Abuse of process
- Directing further investigation during a hearing
- Evidence
- Making decisions on sexual misconduct
- Making decisions on dishonesty charges and the professional duty of candour
- Agreed removal at hearings
- Deciding on incorrect or fraudulent entry
- Sanctions
-
Reviews
- Reviewing case examiner decisions
- Interim order reviews
-
Substantive order reviews
- Substantive order reviews - overview
- Standard reviews of substantive orders before they expire
- Early review
- Exceptional cases: changing orders with immediate effect at a standard review
- Review of striking-off orders
- New allegations
- Reviewing orders when there may have been a breach
- Reviews where an interim order is in place
- Removal from the register when there is a substantive order in place
- Appeals and restoration