Sexual Harassment and Assault in Health Care

The Professional Standards Authority (PSA), the oversight body for health and social care regulators in the UK, has recently published a reflective blog on its research, work and insights on the issue of sexual harassment and assault in health care: https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/news-and-blog/blog/detail/blog/2022/08/09/sexual-harassment-and-assault-in-health-and-care-getting-the-regulatory-response-right.

While discussing the sexual abuse of patients, the focus of the blog is on sexism and sexual impropriety of colleagues. The PSA noted studies demonstrating the prevalence of the concerns, including one “which found that 91% of female respondents had experienced sexism at work within the past two years, 70% of women felt that their clinical ability had been doubted or undervalued because of their gender and overall, 84% of all respondents said there was an issue of sexism in the medical profession.” Similar concerns were noted in studies of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape.

The PSA noted that the problem was broader than what regulators could address on their own and noted that some regulators had already taken some significant action. However, the PSA said:

We know from research we commissioned from the academic Dr Simon Christmas that where behaviour isn’t challenged, it can create a culture where boundary crossing becomes accepted and normalised. Research by Professor Rosaline Searle adds to this evidence base. Her analysis of fitness to practise decisions found that those with a proclivity for sexual misconduct were more likely to cross boundaries where they witnessed others doing so, and that some perpetrators were in effect ‘corrupted’ by the falling standards of their workplace. This shows the vital importance of inappropriate behaviour (including ‘low-level’ behaviour) being challenged before it is allowed to develop into more serious violations and create a toxic workplace culture where perpetrators act with impunity.

In terms of action for which regulators are directly responsible, we’re aware of concerns that some fitness to practise panels haven’t taken sexual harassment as seriously as they should have done, particularly where this was at the lower end of the scale and involved a colleague rather than a patient. Much of the problem here is likely to be a result of a lack of training, as highlighted in the article by Rebecca Vanstone featured in this Professional Discipline & Regulatory Team Bulletin.

These are observations that other regulators may find useful, even in the non-health context. See for example the shocking article about lawyers in Australia, which can be accessed at: https://lsj.com.au/articles/the-scourge-of-inappropriate-behaviour-in-our-profession/.

More Posts

Interpreting Legislation vs Making Legislation

Regulators cannot enact legislation through policy. However, regulators frequently publish policies interpreting or applying their legislation. The line between those two activities is sometimes fine.

Investigative Choices

Investigations require the regulator and investigator to make multiple choices throughout. Registrants sometimes suggest that some of the choices made are unfair. Courts tend to

Don’t Ask for the World

It is a delicate task to word an investigative summons to produce documents. On the one hand, the investigator wants to ensure that all helpful

Challenging a Referral to Discipline

Courts strongly discourage registrants from judicially challenging the validity of a referral of allegations of professional misconduct to discipline. The latest court decision on the