A Novel Content and Usability Analysis of UK Professional Regulator Information About Raising a Concern by Members of the Public

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1111/hex.70027

Gemma Ryan-Blackwell, Louise M. Wallace, Francesca Ribenfors

{"title":"A Novel Content and Usability Analysis of UK Professional Regulator Information About Raising a Concern by Members of the Public","authors":"Gemma Ryan-Blackwell, Louise M. Wallace, Francesca Ribenfors","doi":"10.1111/hex.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Health and social care regulators ensure that professionals have the correct qualifications and experience to practice in their profession. Globally, there are over 130 regulators of nursing alone and 13 health and social care statutory regulators in the United Kingdom. The public are the largest source of concerns to regulators about the registrants' fitness to practise (FtP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to examine the amount, type and content of the information available from UK regulators and evaluate the usability of the process for members of the public considering raising a concern with a regulator about a registrant's fitness to practise (FtP) and the experience of those who had recently raised a concern.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The websites of the UK's 13 statutory health and social care regulators were searched between November 2021 and February 2022 for information about the process of raising a concern. Webpages and public-facing documentation were downloaded, and qualitative content analysis was conducted. The usability of regulator websites and the concerns referral form were assessed by 11 people using an adapted ‘system usability scale’. Seven interviews, a focus group (<i>n</i> = 5) and a survey (<i>n</i> = 62) of people who had raised a concern were used to explore their experiences to validate our findings and recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Themes were identified related to format and layout, the process and support to raise a concern, with wide variation found between regulators. Focus groups, interviews and surveys validated these findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Information and the ease of finding this information are fundamental in promoting public confidence and trust in regulator purpose and process. When raising a concern, it is important that information is honest, clear and accurate and available in a range of different formats so that it suits the diverse needs of members of the public. Improvements in these processes could support regulators to better achieve their primary purpose of protecting the public.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The public were consulted on our findings using two focus groups, seven interviews and 62 survey respondents.</p>\n \n <p>Our project advisory group of people with lived experience of involvement in FtP discussed the findings and contributed to the recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>N/A.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70027","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health and social care regulators ensure that professionals have the correct qualifications and experience to practice in their profession. Globally, there are over 130 regulators of nursing alone and 13 health and social care statutory regulators in the United Kingdom. The public are the largest source of concerns to regulators about the registrants' fitness to practise (FtP).

Aim

This study aimed to examine the amount, type and content of the information available from UK regulators and evaluate the usability of the process for members of the public considering raising a concern with a regulator about a registrant's fitness to practise (FtP) and the experience of those who had recently raised a concern.

Methods

The websites of the UK's 13 statutory health and social care regulators were searched between November 2021 and February 2022 for information about the process of raising a concern. Webpages and public-facing documentation were downloaded, and qualitative content analysis was conducted. The usability of regulator websites and the concerns referral form were assessed by 11 people using an adapted ‘system usability scale’. Seven interviews, a focus group (n = 5) and a survey (n = 62) of people who had raised a concern were used to explore their experiences to validate our findings and recommendations.

Results

Themes were identified related to format and layout, the process and support to raise a concern, with wide variation found between regulators. Focus groups, interviews and surveys validated these findings.

Discussion and Conclusion

Information and the ease of finding this information are fundamental in promoting public confidence and trust in regulator purpose and process. When raising a concern, it is important that information is honest, clear and accurate and available in a range of different formats so that it suits the diverse needs of members of the public. Improvements in these processes could support regulators to better achieve their primary purpose of protecting the public.

Public Contribution

The public were consulted on our findings using two focus groups, seven interviews and 62 survey respondents.

Our project advisory group of people with lived experience of involvement in FtP discussed the findings and contributed to the recommendations.

Trial Registration

N/A.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

英国专业监管机构关于公众提出关切的信息的新颖内容和可用性分析

背景卫生和社会护理监管机构确保专业人员具备从事其专业的正确资格和经验。全球有 130 多个护理监管机构，英国有 13 个卫生和社会护理法定监管机构。公众是监管机构关注注册人员是否适合执业（FtP）的最大来源。本研究旨在检查英国监管机构提供的信息数量、类型和内容，评估公众在考虑向监管机构提出有关注册人员执业资格（FtP）问题时的程序可用性，以及最近提出过问题的公众的经验。方法在 2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 2 月期间，对英国 13 家法定医疗和社会医疗监管机构的网站进行了搜索，以了解有关提出关注程序的信息。下载了网页和面向公众的文件，并进行了定性内容分析。11 人使用经过改编的 "系统可用性量表 "对监管机构网站和问题转介表的可用性进行了评估。对提出过关注问题的人进行了七次访谈、一次焦点小组（n = 5）和一次调查（n = 62），以探讨他们的经验，从而验证我们的发现和建议。结果确定的主题涉及形式和布局、流程以及对提出问题的支持，不同监管机构之间存在很大差异。焦点小组、访谈和调查验证了这些发现。讨论与结论信息和查找这些信息的便捷性是提高公众对监管机构宗旨和程序的信心和信任的基础。在提出疑虑时，重要的是信息要诚实、清晰、准确，并以各种不同的形式提供，以满足公众的不同需求。这些流程的改进可以支持监管机构更好地实现其保护公众的主要目的。公众贡献我们通过两个焦点小组、七次访谈和 62 份调查问卷，就我们的研究结果征求了公众的意见。我们的项目咨询小组由具有参与 FtP 生活经验的人士组成，他们对研究结果进行了讨论，并对建议做出了贡献。试验登记不详。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.