Corporate Strategy and Perceptions Tracking Survey 2024
Why did we commission this research?
We’re committed to being an effective, relevant and compassionate regulator for those we regulate, patients, the public, and as an employer.
That’s why, every two years, we run our corporate strategy and perceptions tracking survey. By listening to those we regulate, patients and stakeholders, we aim to increase trust and confidence in our approach to regulation.
The research had two key purposes:
- To provide us with tracking data, which will be used to help assess progress on our 2021–25 corporate strategy.
- To help us understand our key audiences’ perceptions of us and our role.
What did the research involve?
We commissioned an independent research consultancy, Shift Research, to carry this out. It consisted of two phases:
- Phase 1 – quantitative: involved seven audience groups – doctors, responsible officers (oversee local clinical governance processes within their organisations), final year medical students, patients and the public, providers (organisations that provide medical care), educators and stakeholders.
- Phase 2 – qualitative: included 38 virtual interviews with final year medical students (who were recent medical graduates at the time), doctors and responsible offices. All interviewees had taken part in the quantitative phase.
What were the key findings?
Phase 1 – Quantitative
- For patients and the public, perceptions of us were often related to their overall confidence in doctors, and less directly related to perceptions of us as an organisation.
- Medical students’ understanding of our role in medical education remained low compared to 2022.
- Doctors’ overall confidence in us has improved slightly from 2022, but changes over time differ by doctor type.
- Confidence in our fitness to practise fitness processes is still a top-of-mind concern and a suggested area of improvement for almost all audiences. In fact, the key driver analysis showed that how we handle concerns is central to perceptions of us as an organisation.
- Though not as high as concerns about fitness to practise, there were also concerns about our regulation of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs) amongst medical students and doctors.
- Medical students and doctors want us to improve our support for doctors.
- The research suggests that the low perceptions of us amongst doctors in postgraduate training are important to consider.
- There appears to be a positive relationship between us and responsible officers, providers, educators and stakeholders – though the respondents reported there is an opportunity for more collaborative work.
Phase 2 – Qualitative
- Participants’ confidence in us was linked to how well they felt their expectations of us were met. These expectations often focussed on patient safety and setting and maintaining standards. However, medical students in particular also wanted us to focus on wider issues, eg having more of a representative function.
- Views on our effectiveness were mixed, with some appreciating our efficient registration process while others had concerns about bias in fitness to practise investigations and a perception that processes are lengthy.
- We were seen as necessary but sometimes slow to adapt, and our regulation of PAs and AAs was viewed as not relevant to a regulator of doctors, which many still perceived us as being.
- Many participants felt we lacked compassion, citing high-profile fitness to practise cases. Effective communication was seen as a key aspect of compassion, but participants felt the organisation often fell short.
- The research highlighted a relationship between the complexity of information networks and participants’ confidence levels. Those getting information from more diverse sources tended to have lower confidence, while those who received information mainly from us had higher confidence.
- The researchers identified four areas we might focus on: reducing the impact of fitness to practise monitoring and mitigating bias, improving working conditions and becoming an effective multiprofessional regulator
What happens next?
The research has been shared across the organisation as part of our commitment to improve the way we work, and we are taking forward the four areas identified.
More specifically, the findings continue to highlight the significant role that our fitness to practise processes play in shaping perceptions of us. As a result, we’ve been focused on making sure our approach to fitness to practise is fair and proportionate while considering the impact of an investigation on those involved.
Changes we’ve made include:
- publishing a new fitness to practise explained webpage to improve understanding of our processes
- updating our guidance to allow for more discretion and flexibility when considering allegations of minor violence and dishonesty
- setting targets around the disproportionate rate at which ethnic minority doctors are referred to us by their employers
You can read about the changes we’re making to minimise fear and increase trust, and our vision for the effective, compassionate and fair regulator we want to be in a blog from Charlie Massey, Chief Executive and Registrar.
