ArticleBMC health services research2024
Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experiences and Impacts of Working in Organisations Undergoing Regulatory Scrutiny: An Integrative Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 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.
methodsBetween 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.
resultsOf 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).
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.