Regulation in the future – will it matter?

Capture.JPG

We recently attended (and presented at) The Professional Standards Authority 2020 Conference on the subject of “Regulation in the future – will it matter?” It was held shortly before the COVID-19 measures were implemented and was probably one of the last large conferences to be held in central London. Two of the keynote speeches entitled ‘Change as the new normal’ and ‘Alternative futures’ seem aptly prescient at the moment. However, instead of considering the short-term situation, the conference explored the longer-term future of health professions regulation. Whilst the conference was focused on health professions regulation, many of the presentations and debates raised issues which have more widespread application. Topics included:

How to build trust and confidence in professions and their regulators in a changing world: Community Research jointly presented on this topic with the General Medical Council, combining our research on confidence in health professionals and our findings of some research conducted with members of the Gen Z generation. It considered how Gen Z see the world (and their associated behaviours) and what this means for trust in future. Click on the links here to read the two reports: Research into public confidence and Gen Z research.

Focusing more on upstream regulation and prevention rather than cure. There was much discussion about the need to consider prevention rather than cure i.e. think about the welfare of professionals and the external factors that may inhibit good practice, rather than devoting energy to the processes that impose sanctions when things go wrong. Presentations on supporting professionals’ well-being in order to improve patient outcomes and the impact of systems pressures on patients were evidence of this continuing shift in thinking.

New directions for Fitness to Practice – many regulators are reviewing their processes to ensure that their systems are less adversarial and more proportionate. However, many were alive to the associated risks and potential unintended consequences of changes to processes (for example, the move to consensual disposal of cases rather than holding more formal hearings).

Exploring professionalism and preparedness for practice – many regulators are also considering more broadly what it means to be a professional and how professional identity and behaviours link to outcomes and risk.

Another prevalent theme was the implications of the introduction and use of new technology and particularly the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) – in terms of the potential benefits and the possible risks in relation to public/consumer protection, with big questions about how AI approaches can and should be covered by regulation.

Many of the papers and discussions stressed the importance of regulators listening to the public voice and taking the public (and those they regulate) with them in terms of decisions made. Having a focus on evidence-led decision-making and prioritising research and engagement becomes even more important in an uncertain and rapidly changing world.  Conference attendees stressed the need for regulators to ensure that their standards, processes and overarching strategies are (and continue to be) in tune with public and patient expectations.

The conference papers from the PSA’s conference will be uploaded here when they are available.

Lucy Lea