Attitudes To Regulation Of Non-Medical Healthcare Professionals

The research findings from the present study bear a striking similarity to those from MORI's earlier research on the regulation and revalidation of doctors. This may reflect one of the findings of the qualitative research: that even though doctors and the other professionals covered by the research are not seen as having the same roles, people seem to find it difficult to talk about non-medical healthcare professionals without also talking about doctors. They therefore fail to treat them as separate groups. This came across strongly in the focus groups, where respondents tended to focus on doctors, even when asked about non-medical healthcare professionals.

There are a number of key findings:

• There is a high level of satisfaction with non-medical healthcare professionals, as there is with doctors (see note).
• Despite people's broad experience of non-medical healthcare professionals, there is very little understanding of the current system of assessment. Again, this reflects MORI research on public attitudes towards the assessment of doctor (see note). Whilst most people believe non-medical healthcare professionals are currently assessed, a large minority do not know how often checks are carried out. There is little awareness of which regulatory bodies carry out checks. This is unsurprising given the public's generally low awareness of regulation in general.
• There is strong public support for regular checks being carried out on non-medical healthcare professionals, as there is with doctors. Most prefer assessments every couple of years and few feel that inspections would be a waste of time and money.
• Responsibility for poor practice is seen to rest with a range of organisations and individuals, although none stand out as significantly more frequently mentioned. This may reflect the low understanding of regulation of non-medical healthcare professionals.
• There is strong support for the idea of giving patient feedback. Quality of care, knowledge/technical ability and softer, more interpersonal skills -- like communication and giving patients dignity and respect -- come out as the most important aspects for feedback. This is in line with MORI's research on public attitudes towards the regulation of doctors, which highlighted both the importance of keeping up-to-date with medical developments and doctors' communication skills. (see note)

The research findings suggest that reassurance on the cost implications and administrative and bureaucratic impacts on healthcare organisations may be important for increasing public support for regular assessments. Whilst a relatively small proportion -- around one in ten -- agrees that inspections would be a waste of time and money, the views of this group are also much less positive towards regular assessments. This reflects some of the comments in the discussion groups, which highlighted concern about the additional burdens that assessments could make on healthcare providers.

Attitudes To Regulation Of Non-Medical Healthcare Professionals pdf, 312KB

Notes

See also Support For Doctors' Assessments

Technical note

MORI interviewed a representative quota sample of 2,084 UK adults aged 16+. 1,973 of these were in Great Britain and 111 in Northern Ireland. Interviews were carried out face-to-face with the aid of CAPI terminals in Great Britain and on paper in Northern Ireland. The fieldwork period was 3-8 September 2005 in NI, 8-13 September 2005 in GB.