What would you do?
We are running a study into how people think regulated professionals should be dealt with when they face fitness to practise proceedings. You read a short scenario about a case going before an independent panel, say what you think should happen, and then see what the panel actually decided. It takes about three minutes.
Who are we, and why are we asking these questions?
Sequentus Education provides legal education for students and mental health support for healthcare professionals facing fitness to practise proceedings. Sequentus Legal Services provides legal advice, support and legal representation to professionals facing regulatory proceedings. And finally, Sequentus Intelligence is the platform that pulls together data and insights into professional regulation, including the attitudes survey we are asking you to complete.
We say that at the outset because we want to be transparent about our involvement in the study. We act for people affected by issues similar to those that arise in the questions we are asking you — but not these cases, which were decided some time ago and published by the regulator. You should know that before you answer, and before you read anything we publish from the results.
What the public thinks is part of the test
When a panel decides what should happen to a professional, it is not only asking whether the public is safe. Every UK health, care and legal regulator works to an objective that includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper professional standards — and panels are routinely asked what a reasonable, well-informed member of the public would make of a particular outcome.
That view is almost always inferred. It is argued in submissions, weighed by a panel and recorded in a determination, but the public is very rarely asked directly. This study asks them.
The same case, judged twice
Everyone who takes part chooses an outcome, and is then told one more fact about the case — a fact that was always true, and that a panel would have heard. Then they are asked again.
Three minutes, five steps
You read a scenario
A short account of what a regulated professional is said to have done. No names, and no specialist knowledge needed.
You choose an outcome
From no sanction at all through to permanent removal from the register — and what you think it would achieve.
You are told more
One further fact, drawn at random: delay, remediation, a previous finding, no representation, harm caused.
You answer again
If your view has moved, you say where to. If it has not, that is a finding too.
You see what happened
The outcome the panel actually reached in the real case — and how other people answered.
Real cases, written so that nobody is identifiable
Every scenario is drawn from a decision a regulator has already published. That is what allows us to show you what the panel actually decided at the end — the comparison would be worthless against an invented case.
Each one is then rewritten before it goes anywhere near the study: names, dates, places, employers and any detail that would let a reader work out whose case it is are removed, and the account is reduced to the facts a panel had to weigh. The published decisions remain public documents; our versions of them are not, and are not intended to be traceable back.
- Drawn from published regulatory determinations across a range of regulators
- Abstracted before use — no names, no employers, no identifying detail
- Chosen for a spread of outcomes, not for severity
- The further facts are drawn from a fixed set, independently of the case
What we collect, and what we do with it
You do not have to tell us who you are. The study records the answers you give, which broad sector you work in, and nothing else. There is no name field and no account.
At the end you can leave an email address if you want to hear about the findings. That is optional, it is the only personal data the study holds, we do not share it with anyone, and you can ask us to delete it at any time by writing to education@sequentus.org.
For every completed response we set aside 50p in our access to justice fund — up to £2,000 in this first phase of the study — which supports registrants going through fitness to practise proceedings without representation. It is an internal fund held by Sequentus Education, our not-for-profit. It is not a registered charity, and we do not ask anyone else to contribute to it.
Nothing published yet
The study is open and collecting. We will publish findings on this page when there are enough responses for them to mean anything, and we will say how many responses each figure rests on when we do.
We would rather say that plainly than put a chart up early. If you want to be told when the first results are published, leave an email address at the end of the survey.
FAQ
Take part
One scenario, about three minutes. You will see what the panel decided at the end.
Take part