A debate organised by the King's Fund has concluded that modernised self-regulation of health professions will not satisfy Government or public concern over accountability.
Proposing a motion to that effect, Professor Celia Davies (professor of health care, Open university) said on June 12 that public confidence in the health professions was at an all-time low because there were too many examples of poor practice. The relationship of trust had broken down. The problem was rooted in the failure of management to act fast enough in some cases or to use its own procedures in others. The solution was not to give new powers to professional regulatory bodies; that had to be a last resort. Better management was needed coupled with an inclusive disciplinary system in which the professions did not lead. She called this "stakeholder regulation".
Opposing, Mr Robert Nicholls (lay member, General Medical Council) said that there was only a little loss of trust in health professionals; the real loss of trust was in the regulatory system. He advocated changed and accountable self-regulation. If the Government system for inspecting education was anything to go by, external regulation risked serious demotivation.
He accepted that there should be more public involvement in professional regulation, but that the primary need was for transparent and accountable self-regulation.
"Self-regulation is a privilege which has been earned, but which needs to be constantly renewed," he said. Standards and performance were for the professions, but conduct could be handled by tribunals with lay majorities.