HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and Social Media Consultation.
Summary response.
We welcomed the opportunity to provide comment on the HCPC proposed changes to the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (SCPE) and Guidance on Social Media Consultation. We also would like to give our thanks to our members who provided their comments to us during the writing of our response.
Our full response to this consultation can be found on here.
Within the proposed changes to the Standards there is a considerable increase in emphasis on registrant’s responsibilities, which could lead to increased registrant stress and anxiety. In light of this, it was encouraging that within the consultation questions, the HCPC showed consideration for registrants’ mental health. We did, however, raise one particular concern within our response in relation to Standard 6.3 and the responsibility on a registrant to assess whether their health is affecting their practice. Despite emotional intelligence and self-awareness, there are times when an individual may not, due to mental ill-health, be able to identify changes in their own mental health. We asked that the HCPC acknowledge and appreciate this with empathy. In addition, we asked whether any of the proposed changes to the Standards had been through a HCPC ‘tone of voice’ review to ensure their communication is compassionate and humane? And if so, would a report of this review be published?
The Standards are littered with the term ‘the registrant must…’, which in most cases is entirely appropriate. However, our response highlighted two specific examples that could be problematic for paramedics working in a 999 environment. The Standard where a registrant ‘must apologise’ and the Standard where the registrant ‘must give service users or carers the information they want’. Our response outlined how there may be difficulty for a registrant if they find themselves in conflict between adhering to the HCPC standards and following their employing organisation’s policy. The SCPE appear to be predominantly written for professional practice that occurs in the context of an appropriate amount of time for optimal deliberation of decisions, the planning of appropriate ongoing care and consideration of all alternative options. Paramedics that work within the 999 environment are often not afforded the luxury of time, and whilst their decisions are deliberated and reflected upon, the inclusion of the word ‘must’ in these standards is not practicably achievable is some situations.
In the HCPC’s Consultation commentary document it was stated that during the pre-consultation workshops, registrants expressed confusion regarding the situations that require self-referral. We have asked the HCPC specifically why then, there have been no proposed changes to Standard 9.5 to alleviate this confusion? In addition, we provided suggestions to the HCPC on wording changes that could help ameliorate the current self-referral burden faced by a large proportion of the paramedic profession.
The expansion in relation to Standard 2.7 Communication and Social Media, provide some much-needed clarity for registrants but we felt that there is still a high level of ambiguity within the wording when attempting to apply the proposed standards in practice. We have suggested that case study examples are provided at the earliest opportunity and before the one-year implementation period, to support registrants to understand how these ‘new’ standards can be applied in their own practice and how they will be applied by the HCPC in a fitness to practise situation.
The proposed changes appear to make it clear that every social media/networking site post could now be considered by the HCPC in fitness to practise proceedings, and it is our interpretation that in the view of the HCPC there is now no clear difference at all between the use of social media in a professional and non-professional/personal capacity. Our response to this consultation highlighted the potential for infringement of the Human Rights Article 8, Right to Privacy when attempting to apply this Standard in a fitness to practise situation.
The proposed use of historical ‘personal’ social media content by the HCPC is also of specific concern, and could be particularly impactful, to our future registrants and our current student colleagues. Some individuals may have upwards of a decade of content on multiple social media platforms and social networking sites, causing anxiety over the potential inappropriateness of content posted years ago without malintent, without the cognition of a registered healthcare professional and where no laws, policies or regulatory standards had been infringed at the time of posting. It is unrealistic to expect individuals to hand search and delete content to ensure compliance.
In general, we would support the promotion of public health messaging amongst our members, however being professional on social media does not always necessarily equate to aligning your beliefs with government health messages. For example, some religious views could easily put a registrant at conflict with government public health messaging. It is our view that each individual has the right to their opinion, even if that opinion is not widely shared by others or contradicts the community majority. We have asked the HCPC to carefully consider their guidance to ensure that it does not limit the freedom of expression and speech of registrants beyond what they are legally entitled to do in a democratic society.
We felt that the standards and proposed changes focused solely on being anti-discriminatory, but that there was nothing about a registrant needing to understand the barriers that some vulnerable or minoritised groups face and a responsibility to take appropriate action to overcome these.
Finally, the consultation asked about the inclusion of, and potential content of an improving sustainability standard. Improving sustainability in health and care practice should be both an organisational and individual responsibility. Therefore, the inclusion of a Standard relating to sustainability would need to be focused on a registrant supporting organisational policy wherever possible. A sustainability Standard should not focus on a registrant’s actions without malintent. As examples: a self-referral for incorrect disposal of gloves in an emergency situation or idling an ambulance engine in a prolonged handover at hospital situation to maintain ventilated air flow, would both be unreasonable. Furthermore, we asked how would the HCPC Tribunal Service view a registrant arrested by the Police for protesting with Just Stop Oil?