Thematic Review of Cases referred to the Professional Conduct Committee

Following our thematic review of the Fitness to Practise (FtP) process, the GCC has continued its work on our 15-point Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Action Plan by recently completing a similar review of cases referred to the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC). 

The purpose of this review was to identify any potential concerns regarding bias, discrimination, or fairness within the PCC system. This was inspired by a similar piece of work conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC) which identified a disproportionate number of referrals to the GMC Fitness to Practise process of doctors from an ethnic minority background, or who had qualified outside of the UK.

In the GCC study, the researchers examined the redacted findings from 50 completed PCC cases (dating between 2020 and 2024), and considered if there was a link between the nature of the chiropractors protected characteristics and the outcome, and possible sanction.

The research found:

• There was no relationship between the nature of the complaint (clinical vs non-clinical) and the nature of the protected characteristics held by the registrants.
• There was no relationship between the registrants protected characteristics and the disciplinary outcome (whether they were found guilty or not guilty of unacceptable professional conduct). This suggests no systemic bias in the process related to any protected characteristic.

Of the 50 cases considered, 24 resulted in a finding of Unacceptable Professional Conduct (UPC). When considering the sanctions imposed in these 24 cases:

• there was an over-representation of white male chiropractors that were removed from the register

However, the finding is indicative, rather than statistically significant, due to the small number of cases involved.

The research also identified several areas of positive practice - particularly the lack of significant disparity in disciplinary outcomes. The absence of statistically significant links between EDI issues and PCC cases suggests that disciplinary actions are based on objective evidence and adherence to established standards, indicating transparency in the regulatory processes involved.