The role of seriousness in fitness to practise proceedings in social work in England

Introduction

By Social Work England

In 2025, Social Work England commissioned ICE Creates to undertake research exploring how the concept of seriousness influences fitness to practise proceedings and outcomes, with a focus on social work in England.

The key objectives were to explore:

• How Social Work England has described and applied the concept of seriousness in fitness to practise outcomes.
• How health and social care regulators, and the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) define seriousness throughout their fitness to practise process and how this has evolved over time.
• How seriousness is understood and interpreted within complex aspects of fitness to practise such as misconduct, dishonesty and public interest.
• How decision makers use concepts, guidance and case law related to seriousness throughout Social Work England’s fitness to practise proceedings.
• The role of human factors, such as the workplace environment, in determining seriousness in fitness to practise cases.

As part of this project, 4 separate research activities were carried out. This included:

• A literature review exploring the conceptualisation of seriousness using regulatory guidance, academic journals and case law.
• A case analysis to understand how differences between regulators can impact the fitness to practise process and decision-making process. The 12 cases analysed included issues such as drink driving, personal life conduct, communication in public and private, and dishonesty.
• Interviews with 20 employees from a range of health and social care regulators.
• Focus groups with 20 Social Work England employees and partners who work across Social Work England’s fitness to practise process.

The findings from the interviews and focus groups can’t be claimed to be representative due to the relatively small sample size and the qualitative nature of the data collection. However, the findings give a strong sense of how seriousness is being approached in Social Work England and across regulators.

Context for research

Seriousness is a key concept that informs fitness to practise proceedings across health and social care regulators. Seriousness is central to assessing the severity of a potential impairment to practice and to determining an appropriate sanction.

Health and social care regulators differ in how they approach seriousness. There is greater consistency in how regulators approach cases that are deemed most serious. Regulators consider a wide range of contextual factors when determining seriousness. These might include a registrant’s engagement with proceedings or whether a registrant has taken suitable remedial actions. Environmental factors such as workplace culture or a registrant’s caseload may also be relevant to determining seriousness.

Social Work England assesses seriousness in relation to its overall objectives:

• to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public
• to promote and maintain confidence in social workers in England
• to promote and maintain proper professional standards for social workers in England

The way seriousness is used and understood can vary at different stages of Social Work England’s fitness to practise process, and requires decision makers to take a broad approach to determining seriousness in any given case. Many other regulators have similar experiences of this. The concept of seriousness needs to allow clear and consistent decision making. It also needs to leave space to consider nuanced contextual factors in each case. Research in this area has an important role to play in developing clearer and more consistent approaches to seriousness.

Our summary of key findings

Defining seriousness

Certain types of fitness to practise case were understood to be serious by all regulators. These cases often involve a clear breach of public trust, direct risk of harm to service users, or behaviours that are seen as fundamentally incompatible with professional practise. Cases involving the following attributes were commonly seen as serious:

• criminality
• abuse of power and professional boundaries
• abusive and aggressive behaviour
• confidentiality and data integrity

Challenges in defining seriousness

However, the research findings highlighted that assigning seriousness to some types of cases may be less straightforward. Cases where the boundaries between a professional’s personal and professional life were blurred were considered particularly complex. These included cases involving:

• drink driving
• recreational drug use
• family court proceedings
• the right to protest

Dishonesty is usually viewed as serious when assessing cases. However, contextual factors may influence how serious a case involving dishonesty might be. These factors might include:

• The intent of the registrant (for example, whether it involved deliberate deception or an oversight).
• The impact on service users, the public and professional trust.
• The wider context of the case (for example, were there workplace pressures or ad-verse personal circumstances)
• Whether the registrant has demonstrated remediation and insight.

Public perception also adds a level of complexity when defining seriousness. However, public perception is difficult to measure as it can vary across different groups of people and over time. Public perception is more likely to be a consideration where a case has attracted significant public attention. This is more likely in cases which relate to a registrant’s private life. Public perception also informs decisions around what is in the public interest, or what might be of benefit to society as a whole. Public interest is a common justification for regulatory action, particularly in high profile cases.

Cases involving behaviours that may be considered discriminatory were also considered complex. This may be due to factors such as:

• The varied beliefs and evolving public discourse on divisive issues.
• The impact of social media in making private opinions and beliefs public.

Assigning underlying intent (such as cultural misunderstanding, lack of awareness or malice) was seen to be difficult in cases where registrants had acted in a way that might be perceived as discriminatory. This also added a level of uncertainty to decisions around seriousness.

Separating isolated mistakes from a pattern of misconduct is something which was also highlighted as challenging for the regulators. Cases that involve a pattern of misconduct are more likely to reflect a professional’s poor character and they are more likely going to be an ongoing risk.

Some broader factors shaping how seriousness may be viewed in a case included:

• context (such as staffing levels, role clarity, training, and the working environment)
• behaviour leading up to the event
• level of responsibility and seniority
• attitude and behaviour after the event (such as attitude, honesty, and early engagement)
• outcome of the behaviour, particularly in terms of harm or potential harm caused

The regulators involved in the study suggested that over time they have developed a clearer, more proportionate understanding of seriousness despite some of the challenges in defining seriousness.

The impact of seriousness on fitness to practise outcomes

Judgements around the seriousness of a case were found to have an impact on outcomes. Serious concerns are more likely to be referred to case examiners or practise committees, particularly if removal is a potential sanction. Interim orders (which suspend or put conditions on a professional’s practise) may be imposed early to mitigate ongoing risk. Putting an interim order in place will also lead to faster case progression to make sure the public are protected and confidence is maintained in the profession.

Serious cases are more likely to proceed to a final hearing. This ensures that allegations are adequately pursued and decisions are guided by formal sanction frameworks.

Barriers to the understanding and application of seriousness

The study identified some key challenges in defining and applying seriousness across regulators. These included:

• A lack of clear definition of seriousness in guidance allows flexibility but creates uncertainty and potential for inconsistency.
• Assessing seriousness involves individual judgement. Due to the lack of clearly defined criteria this may lead to subjectivity and risk of bias in decision making.
• Aligning decision maker’s professional judgement and public expectation is sometimes challenging. If public perception changes this can impact public understanding of what is considered serious.
• Complex fitness to practise cases require more resource and time to guarantee consistency in decisions around seriousness.

The study also looked at challenges specific to social care and social work. These included:

• It can be more challenging to obtain clear and consistent evidence as activities often take place in complex, interpersonal settings. Evidence often heavily relies on witness accounts and contextual information.
• Limited social work specific case law compared to professions with a longer history of regulation.
• Perceptions that there can be limited guidance available for decision makers.

However, Social Work England is able to draw on a wide range of case law from different professional contexts, including previous social work regulators, which is an approach shared by regulators across all regulated professions

Improving the understanding and application of seriousness

The challenges around seriousness are something which all regulators, including Social Work England, must consider in their fitness to practise process. For instance, Social Work England already has strategies in place to help ensure consistent and rigorous decision making, particularly in complex cases. These include:

• A collaborative approach to decision making, ensuring a range of expertise and perspectives.
• A consideration of contextual factors early in the fitness to practise process.
• Guidance and case law in place to support all decision makers.

The study identified approaches which may further support the understanding and application of seriousness across all professional regulators. These include:

• Taking a case-driven approach to assessing seriousness, shaped by the specific circumstances of each case rather than fixed checklists or rigid processes.
• Using existing resources like sanctions guidance, case law, internal audits, and thematic reviews to support and refine judgements.
• Accessing sector-specific expertise, especially when cases involve behaviours that might be misinterpreted without professional context.
• Ensuring open, respectful debate and reflection are central to decision making processes.
• Developing greater clarity on core factors influencing decisions around seriousness, such as dishonesty, risk of harm, and abuse of trust.
• Building a shared understanding of public confidence through cross sector dialogue.

Some approaches which may support good practice were also identified which are specific to social work regulation. These include:

• Strengthening the emphasis on seriousness early in the fitness to practise process.
• A greater focus on collective and tiered decision making. Referring complex cases to decision making groups or escalating it through a tiered fitness to practise process helps to ensure balanced decisions around seriousness.
• Providing greater support to social workers, enabling them to engage in the fitness to practise process.
• Bridging the gap between public perception and regulatory understanding.
• Strengthening decision-making through improved frameworks and guidance.
• Developing clearer standards to support consistency in decision making, especially for cases related to criminal convictions.

What happens next?

The findings from this research have been useful in improving our understanding of how seriousness is considered by professional health and social care regulators in England. It is another step in our journey to explore the concept and application of seriousness further and will inform our approach to future work.

We recognise the limitations of this research. We hope sharing these findings will mean we can continue to engage transparently with the public and our registrants about the complexity of fitness to practise and how the seriousness of the concerns we receive effects our decision making. We will share this research with colleagues internally and externally and use to prepare for the next phase of our work in this area, in line with our business plan objectives.

This research will also inform our work to improve our triage process and will be a factor in amending our guidance for decision makers at all stages of fitness to practise into the future. It will also complement our ongoing work to understand and take action in relation to higher number of referrals we have received over the past 12 months.