literature review of halal research council

Systematic Literature Review of Halal Ethnic Foods Consumption; Health-Related Scientific; and Marketing Perspective

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 January 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Rameen Maqsood 7 &
• Rana Muhammad Ayyub 7  

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Included in the following conference series:

• Global Islamic Marketing Conference

273 Accesses

In multicultural societies, ethnic food acculturation has increased because of many factors, especially the health factor. The aim of this study is to highlight the impact of food quality, food shelf life, and ethnic foods on health well-being. Systematic literature review was conducted. Online databases were searched for qualitative primary research published between 1990 and 2021. Twenty-six studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifteen themes were extracted from qualitative data. The notable ethnic foods including halal foods, Jews foods, Hindus foods, and Christian foods were included in analysis. This review offers insights not previously examined by other reviews on this area. It was found halal food foster human health well-being. Consumption of good quality food has positive impact on human health well-being. Longer shelf life of food has adverse effects on health and well-being. This is probably unique study on the impact of ethnic foods on human health well-being. Future researchers can use the findings of this study to guide their research in the area of ethnic food consumption regarding human health well-being. The main findings of this paper are useful for halal producers, marketers, business community and to design marketing campaigns and to position halal foods based on its impact on human health well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adekunle, B., Filson, G. (2020). Understanding halal food market: Resolving asymmetric information. Food Ethics, 5 (1), 1–22.

Google Scholar  

Aghwan, Z., Bello, A., Abubakar, A., Imlan, J., Sazili, A. (2016). Efficient halal bleeding, animal handling, and welfare: A holistic approach for meat quality. Meat Science, 121 , 420–428.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, A. N., Abidin, U. F. U. Z., Othman, M., Rahman, R. A. (2018). Overview of the halal food control system in Malaysia. Food Control, 90 , 352–363.

Alam, S. S., Sayuti, N. M. (2011). Applying the theory of planned Behavior (TPB) in halal food purchasing. International Journal of Commerce and Management .

Ali, A. S., Lawson, M. A., Tauson, A.-H., Fris Jensen, J., Chwalibog, A. (2007). Influence of electrical stunning voltages on bleed out and carcass quality in slaughtered broiler chickens. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 71 (1), 35–40.

Ali, M. H., Tan, K. H., Ismail, M. D. (2017). A supply chain integrity framework for halal food. British Food Journal .

Alisson-Silva, F., Kawanishi, K., Varki, A. (2016). Human risk of diseases associated with red meat intake: Analysis of current theories and proposed role for metabolic incorporation of a non-human sialic acid. Molecular Aspects of Medicine, 51 , 16–30.

Alzeer, J., Rieder, U., Abou Hadeed, K. (2018). Rational and practical aspects of Halal and Tayyib in the context of food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 71 , 264–267.

Ares, G., de Saldamando, L., Giménez, A., Claret, A., Cunha, L. M., Guerrero, L., Deliza, R. (2015). Consumers’ associations with wellbeing in a food-related context: A cross-cultural study. Food Quality and Preference, 40 , 304–315.

Arif, S., Ahmad, R. (2011). Food quality standards in developing quality human capital: An Islamic perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (31), 12242–12248.

Arsil, P., Tey, Y. S., Brindal, M., Phua, C. U., Liana, D. (2018). Personal values underlying halal food consumption: evidence from Indonesia and Malaysia. British Food Journal .

Ayyub, R. M. (2015a). An empirical investigation of ethnic food consumption: a perspective of majority ethnic group. British Food Journal .

Ayyub, R. M. (2015b). Exploring perceptions of non-Muslims towards Halal foods in UK. British Food Journal .

Bashir, A. M. (2019). Awareness of purchasing halal food among non-Muslim consumers: An explorative study with reference to Cape Town of South Africa. Journal of Islamic Marketing .

Brondz, I. (2018). Why Judaism and Islam Prohibit eating pork and consuming blood as a food?

Castro-Giráldez, M., Dols, L., Toldrá, F., Fito, P. (2011). Development of a dielectric spectroscopy technique for the determination of key biochemical markers of meat quality. Food Chemistry, 127 (1), 228–233.

Choe, J.-H., Yang, H.-S., Lee, S.-H., Go, G.-W. (2015). Characteristics of pork belly consumption in South Korea and their health implication. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 57 (1), 1–7.

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., Valentine, J. C. (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis . Russell Sage Foundation.

Damayanti, F., Wahyati, E. (2019). Food safety in the protection of the right to health. In Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science .

De Cooman, L., Houf, K., Smet, A., Flahou, B., Ducatelle, R., De Bruyne, E., Haesebrouck, F. (2014). Presence of Helicobacter suis on pork carcasses. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 187 , 73–76.

Delsart, M., Pol, F., Dufour, B., Rose, N., Fablet, C. (2020). Pig farming in alternative systems: Strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agriculture, 10 (7), 261.

Farouk, M. M., Al-Mazeedi, H. M., Sabow, A. B., Bekhit, A. E. D., Adeyemi, K. D., Sazili, A. Q., Ghani, A. (2014). Halal and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 98 (3), 505–519.

Geeraerts, W., Pothakos, V., De Vuyst, L., Leroy, F. (2017). Diversity of the dominant bacterial species on sliced cooked pork products at expiration date in the Belgian retail. Food Microbiology, 65 , 236–243.

Hamdan, M. N., Post, M., Ramli, M. A., Kamarudin, M. K., Ariffin, M. F. M., Huri, N. M. F. Z. (2021). Cultured Meat: Islamic and Other Religious Perspectives. UMRAN-International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies, 8 (2), 11–19.

Jiménez-Melsió, A., Parés, S., Segalés, J., Kekarainen, T. (2013). Detection of porcine anelloviruses in pork meat and human faeces. Virus Research, 178 (2), 522–524.

Lipka, M., Hackett, C. (2015). Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group.[online] Pew Research Center.

Lubis, H. N., Mohd-Naim, N. F., Alizul, N. N., Ahmed, M. U. (2016). From market to food plate: Current trusted technology and innovations in halal food analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 58 , 55–68.

Marzuki, Z. S., Hall, C. M., Ballantine, P. W. (2012). Restaurant manager and halal certification in Malaysia. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 15 (2), 195–214.

Mohayidin, M. G., Kamarulzaman, N. H. (2014). Consumers’ preferences toward attributes of manufactured halal food products. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 26 (2), 125–139.

Mostafa, M. M. (2018). Mining and mapping halal food consumers: A geo-located Twitter opinion polarity analysis. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24 (7), 858–879.

Mostafa, M. M. (2020). A knowledge domain visualization review of thirty years of halal food research: Themes, trends and knowledge structure. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 99 , 660–677.

Naeem, S., Ayyub, R. M., Ishaq, I., Sadiq, S., Mahmood, T. (2019). Systematic literature review of halal food consumption-qualitative research era 1990–2017. Journal of Islamic Marketing .

Nakyinsige, K., Man, Y. B. C., Sazili, A. Q. (2012). Halal authenticity issues in meat and meat products. Meat Science, 91 (3), 207–214.

Nakyinsige, K., Man, Y. C., Aghwan, Z. A., Zulkifli, I., Goh, Y. M., Bakar, F. A., Sazili, A. (2013). Stunning and animal welfare from Islamic and scientific perspectives. Meat Science, 95 (2), 352–361.

Nakyinsige, K., Fatimah, A., Aghwan, Z., Zulkifli, I., Goh, Y., Sazili, A. (2014). Bleeding efficiency and meat oxidative stability and microbiological quality of New Zealand White rabbits subjected to halal slaughter without stunning and gas stun-killing. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 27 (3), 406.

Nana, Y., Niba, R., Akwah, E. (2013). Assessment of bacteriological quality of cooked pork meat sold along the commercial streets of Nkwen through Bambili Metropolis. Cameroon. African Journal of Food Science, 7 (12), 441–445.

Önenç, A., Kaya, A. (2004). The effects of electrical stunning and percussive captive bolt stunning on meat quality of cattle processed by Turkish slaughter procedures. Meat Science, 66 (4), 809–815.

Poniman, D., Purchase, S., Sneddon, J. (2015b). Traceability systems in the Western Australia halal food supply chain. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27 (2), 324–348.

Poniman, D., Purchase, S., Sneddon, J. (2015a). Traceability systems in the Western Australia halal food supply chain. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics .

Randeree, K. (2019). Challenges in halal food ecosystems: the case of the United Arab Emirates. British Food Journal .

Ratanamaneichat, C., Rakkarn, S. (2013). Quality assurance development of halal food products for export to Indonesia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88 , 134–141.

Rouse, C., Hoskins, J. (2004). Purity, soul food, and Sunni Islam: Explorations at the intersection of consumption and resistance. Cultural Anthropology, 19 (2), 226–249.

Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of food in our lives: A cross-cultural perspective on eating and well-being. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37 , S107–S112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60209-1

Sazelin, A., Ridzwan, A. (2011). Food quality standards in developing quality human capital: An Islamic perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (31), 12242–12248.

Sooryanarain, H., Meng, X.-J. (2020). Swine hepatitis E virus: Cross-species infection, pork safety and chronic infection. Virus Research, 284 , 197985.

Talib, M., Hamid, A. B., Zulfakar, M., Jeeva, A. (2014). Halal logistics PEST analysis: The Malaysia perspectives. Asian Social Science, 10 (14), 119–131.

Thomas, A. M., White, G. R., Plant, E., Zhou, P. (2017). Challenges and practices in Halal meat preparation: A case study investigation of a UK slaughterhouse. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28 (1–2), 12–31.

Tieman, M., Hassan, F. H. (2015). Convergence of food systems: Kosher, Christian and Halal. British Food Journal .

Tieman, M. (2011). The application of Halal in supply chain management: In‐depth interviews. Journal of Islamic Marketing .

Verbeke, W., López, G. P. (2005). Ethnic food attitudes and behaviour among Belgians and Hispanics living in Belgium. British Food Journal .

Wahyuni, H., Vanany, I., Ciptomulyono, U. (2019). Food safety and halal food in the supply chain: Review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 12 (2), 373–391.

Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Shams, F., Pérez, A. (2019). The acceptance of halal food in non-Muslim countries: Effects of religious identity, national identification, consumer ethnocentrism and consumer cosmopolitanism. Journal of Islamic Marketing .

Wilson, J. A. (2014). The halal phenomenon: An extension or a new paradigm? Social Business, 4 (3), 255–271.

Yaacob, T. Z., Rahman, F. A., Jaafar, H. S. (2018). Risk categories in halal food transportation: A preliminary findings. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7 (6), 453–461.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Business Management, Faculty of Life Sciences Business Management, UVAS Business School, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

Rameen Maqsood & Rana Muhammad Ayyub

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rameen Maqsood .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

South East European University, Tetovo, North Macedonia

Veland Ramadani

King Talal School of Business Technology, Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Amman, Jordan

Baker Ahmad Alserhan

Groupe IGS, ICD Business School of Paris, Paris, France

Leo Paul Dana

Jusuf Zeqiri

Kastamonu Yolu Demir, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey

Hasan Terzi

Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Alanya, Turkey

Mehmet Bayirli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Maqsood, R., Ayyub, R.M. (2023). Systematic Literature Review of Halal Ethnic Foods Consumption; Health-Related Scientific; and Marketing Perspective. In: Ramadani, V., Alserhan, B.A., Dana, L.P., Zeqiri, J., Terzi, H., Bayirli, M. (eds) Research on Islamic Business Concepts. GIMAC 2021. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18663-9_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18663-9_13

Published : 01 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-18662-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-18663-9

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

HALAL FOOD CHAIN MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Related Papers

Foods and Raw Materials

Introduction. Although sustainability represents a high-profile topic in supply chain management, it remains an unexplored research area for Halal food supply chains (HFSCs). Hence, to bridge this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify the measures necessary for the development of sustainable HFSCs and potential research gaps at the nexus of sustainability and Halal food literature. Study objects and methods. We carefully analyzed forty (40) papers selected from leading, highly-ranked journals to answer the following research question: “What are the measures necessary for the development of sustainable Halal food supply chains?” Results and discussion. The findings revealed that the improvement of Halal processes through the implementation of quality management systems, the effectiveness of Halal labeling, and the use of technology could enhance the economic performance of HFSCs. Furthermore, HFSC’s sustainability efforts are strengthened by enhancing...

Mohd Hafiz Zulfakar

The image of the Halal food industry has been tarnished due to increasing number of fraudulent Halal certification and physical contamination of Halal food products. Halal food consumers are now starting to question the authenticity and integrity of the Halal foods that they consumed especially that came from the non-Muslim majority countries. The main purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review on Halal food supply chain management and issues pertaining to Halal integrity, taking into account academic and industry publications published in the last ten years. This paper will also provide the conceptual framework on the study regarding factors affecting Halal food supply chain integrity such as traceability, asset specificity, quality assurance and trust and commitment.

Business, Engineering and Industrial …

Emi Normalina Omar

ismah osman

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management

Udisubakti Ciptomulyono

Purpose: Researchers have been actively investigating various issues concerning food safety and halal food in the supply chain. The ultimate goal is to provide guarantees for quality and conformance regarding food standards and demanding expectation from the consumers. We review a set of two-decade food safety and halal food in supply chain (SC) literature from 1990 to 2018 (month of February) in order to pinpoint the problems, models, solution approaches and more importantly, the future directions of this field. Design/methodology/approach: Our method employs the 120 published articles on food safety and halal food in SC research. Various techniques from statistics, bibliometrics, and analytics are systematically deployed to gain insights on how the literature address these two topics.Findings: The predominant contributing articles, authors, affiliations, and keywords have been reviewed, clustered, and thoroughly analyzed. Through systematic graphical and clustering analyses, four ...

American Journal of Economics

Roslan Arshad

Halal certification as a rebranding strategy manifesting Shariah (Islamic) law compliance and toyyiban (wholesome) has evolved to reshape the Muslim socioeconomic fabric constituting 1.6 billion people or 20% of the world's population. The Malaysian standards for Halal certification which include requirements for quality assurance, has resulted in the enhancement of confidence among consumers with respect to wholesomeness of Halal food. These positive responses reinforcing the demands for higher standards of quality have thus created new business and market opportunities for both Muslims and non-Muslims. However, business today are dealing with supply chain issues. As trade extends beyond traditional boundaries, products transcend across many entities via logistics, as they metaphorically travel from farm to fork. While concerns of Halal status have only taken into account the Halal integrity of manufacturers, the Halal supply chain integrity must now be given its due imperative. Hence, to ensure a total Halal integrity assurance across the supply chain where risk of contamination and adulteration is avoided, the perspectives pertaining to Halal applications within the industry must be revised. Research on both consumer and supply chain participants' perceptions and practices on Halal integrity could create the initial food for thought. What is needed currently and into the future is a consumer's rationale and manufacturers commitment on the significance of certification, as a seal of guarantee that the product is Halal not only at production level, but integrated with operations involving transportation, warehousing and retailing.

Journal of Islamic Marketing

abdul haris

Purpose This paper aims to provide a brief bibliometric review of previous literature reviews in understanding halal suppliers in the food supply chain to achieve halal standards from upstream to downstream. Design/methodology/approach The method used was a structured literature review sample of during 2008–2020 totalling 142 articles. The authors use the R-package bibliometric and VOSviewer to find out information about journals, articles, authors, citations, keywords and word hierarchy maps. Findings The analysis reveals five research clusters: halal supply chain, food supply chain, supply chain integration, halal lifestyle, halal logistics. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on articles that discuss halal suppliers in the food supply chain. Originality/value Bibliometric reviews related to suppliers in the halal food supply chain in this study will help explore halal suppliers and be useful for researchers and practitioners in their fields as well as assist supp...

adam mohd saifudin

muhammad satrio

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Shams Rahman

RELATED PAPERS

Nicola Lupo

Anton Zhukov

Cambridge University Press

Valentina A . Grasso

lupita trujillo

ACE: Architecture, City and Environment

Energy & Environmental Science

Michael Salvador

Metodički ogledi

Sabina Vidulin

Acta Botanica Croatica

Vladimir Stupar

Acta Materialia

David R Clarke

Journal of Fluid Mechanics

Hrvatski časopis za javno zdravstvo

Jadranka Sangulin

BMC Research Notes

Hymie Anisman

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

sunil adhikari

Arnaldo Amaral

Annette Christy

Marek Pavlik

nora Tabouche

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Isabelle krzywkowski

Iranian Journal of Insurance Research

In book: Introduction to Quantitative EEG and NeurofeedbackPublisher: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier

Siegfried Othmer

Health Information : Jurnal Penelitian

Baharuddin Bahar

Grenze International Journal of Engineering and Technology GIJET , Lavina Balraj

Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo

Snezana Ristic

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Research in halal certification: A literature review

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Qurtubi , Elisa Kusrini , Vembri Noor Helia , Wahyudhi Sutrisno , Roaida Yanti; Research in halal certification: A literature review. AIP Conf. Proc. 7 December 2023; 2680 (1): 020063. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0126061

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

This article will discuss about the perception towards halal certification, its correlation with halal certification and marketing, performance, human capital, service quality in its certification process, the comparison among certification providers as well the issues and challenges in the research of halal certification. This article is objected to provide understanding on previous researches about halal certification and to propose potential future research. The method applied is literature review. Based on the discussion, it can be resolved that this certification research only considers on halal food category, halal cosmetics and Islamic finance. Other fields that can be explored further are halal travel, halal pharmaceuticals, halal fashion, halal media and recreation. Most of the researches were conducted in Malaysia. Hence, other researches performed in different countries should be carried out to generalize the results of researches.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, systematic literature review of halal food consumption-qualitative research era 1990-2017.

Journal of Islamic Marketing

ISSN : 1759-0833

Article publication date: 18 July 2019

Issue publication date: 20 May 2020

In view of increasing demand of halal foods and to properly address the needs of various types of consumers, the literary inquiries have sprung in this area since start of twenty-first century. However, the number of papers published in reputed journals is still pegged to the lowest ebb. This paper aims to systematically review all qualitative research papers, published in reputed journals, and to give specific directions to future researchers to move on and explore some other required areas.

Design/methodology/approach

The Campbell collaboration systematic literature review technique was adopted as methodology to screen out relevant studies. A total of 11 qualitative studies qualified the set criteria which have used various qualitative methodologies like interviews, focus groups, observations and netnography. The qualitative data were analyzed through nVivo software by adopting Spiggle’s steps of data analysis.

In these selected qualitative studies, around 24 main themes were extracted in total, out of which four themes were repeatedly discussed in most of these studies. Likewise, the details of geographical location of authors, type of methodology used, religious affiliation of respondents, type of journals, most prolific journals and citations of each paper were worked out and given in the form of result tables. Based on the importance of this fastest-growing global food market, it has been concluded that the qualitative research inquiries are still in infancy in this area, and more papers need to be published in reputed journals.

Research limitations/implications

As per set criteria, only papers published in quality journals were included in this review; therefore, the main limitation of this review is that it has not included other qualitative papers published elsewhere.

Practical implications

The future researchers can use the results of this study in setting direction of their research in the area of halal food consumption. These results can be used by academicians to know about the extent of research conducted in this area, whereas marketers can make prudent policies based on these explored areas.

Originality/value

It is claimed to be the first systematic literature review on halal food consumption.

• Systematic literature review
• Halal market
• Literature review
• Halal consumption
• Halal food consumption

Naeem, S. , Ayyub, R.M. , Ishaq, I. , Sadiq, S. and Mahmood, T. (2020), "Systematic literature review of halal food consumption-qualitative research era 1990-2017", Journal of Islamic Marketing , Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 687-707. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-09-2018-0163

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Who We Are?
• Working Group
• Our Promise
• Picture Gallery
• Press Release
• Halal Certification
• Distance Learning Programs
• Advisory and Consultancy
• R&D on Halal Industry
• Download Application Form
• Training Calendar 2023
• Presentation
• What is Halal?
• Strategic Partner
• View Online Newspaper
• True Banking
• AlHuda Today
• Apply for Certification
• Apply to online program
• Training Calendar 2022

• SBI signs MoU with Malaysian Halal Authority.
• UK: Halal cosmetics store to open in Birmingham city centre.
• Distance Learning Program Post Graduate Diploma on Halal Industry (Flexible - Elegant - Convenient & Self Managed Study)
• Arab Brand Summit - Masterbranding The Arab Essence 21st & 22nd February, 2012, Dubai
• Khawaja Asim Khursheed, Chairman FIEDMC signing strategic partner MoU with Zubair Mughal CEO, Halal Research Council for M3 Halal Industrial Park.

Strategic Partners

• Open access
• Published: 16 May 2024

Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey

• Mark McJury 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  635 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

In healthcare, regulation of professions is an important tool to protect the public. With increasing regulation however, professions find themselves under increasing scrutiny. Recently there has also been considerable concern with regulator performance, with high profile reports pointing to cases of inefficiency and bias. Whilst reports have often focused on large staff groups, such as doctors, in the literature there is a dearth of data on the experiences of smaller professional groups such Clinical Scientists with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council.

This article reports the findings of a survey from Clinical Scientists (Physical Sciences modality) about their experiences with their regulator, and their perception of the quality and safety of that regulation.

Between July–October 2022, a survey was conducted via the Medical Physics and Engineering mail-base, open to all medical physicists & engineers. Questions covered typical topics of registration, communication, audit and fitness to practice. The questionnaire consisted of open and closed questions. Likert scoring, and thematic analysis were used to assess the quantitative and qualitative data.

Of 146 responses recorded, analysis was based on 143 respondents. Overall survey sentiment was significantly more negative than positive, in terms of regulator performance (negative responses 159; positive 106; significant at p  < 0.001). Continuous Professional Development audit was rated median 4; other topics were rated as neutral (fitness to practice, policies & procedures); and some as poor (value).

Conclusions

The Clinical Scientist (Physical Sciences) professional registrants rated the performance of their regulator more negatively than other reported assessments (by the Professional Standards Authority). Survey respondents suggested a variety of performance aspects, such as communication and fitness to practice, would benefit from improvement. Indications from this small dataset, suggest a larger survey of HCPC registrants would be useful.

Peer Review reports

In Healthcare, protection of patients and the public is a core principle. Part the framework of protections, includes regulation of professions [ 1 ]. This aims to mitigate risks such as the risk from bogus practitioners – insufficiently trained people acting as fully-trained professional practitioners, see Fig.  1 .

Recent UK media report on a bogus healthcare practitioner [ 2 ]

Regulation of professions ensures that titles (e.g. Doctor, Dentist, Clinical Scientist) are protected in law. The protected title means someone may only use that title, if they are on the national register, managed by the regulator – the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). It is a criminal offence to use a protected title if you are not entitled to do so [ 3 ]. There are a large number of regulators in healthcare – see Table  1 . Most of the regulators manage a register for one profession, except the HCPC which regulates 15 professions.

To be included on the register, a candidate must meet the regulators criteria for knowledge and training, and a key element to remain, is to show evidence of continuous professional development (CPD). Being on the register ensures that a practitioner has met the appropriate level of competence and professional practice.

For many healthcare workers, being on the HCPC register is a compulsory requirement to be appointable to a post. They must pay the necessary annual fees, and abide by the policies drawn-up by the regulator, and generally professions have no choice of regulator – these are statutory bodies, setup by government.

Recently, there has been considerable public dissatisfaction with the activity & performance of some regulators, notably Ofwat [ 4 ], and Ofgem [ 5 ]. Healthcare workers should expect a high level of professionalism, efficiency, and integrity from a regulator, as the regulator’s performance directly affects staff and public safety.

In terms of the regulation of UK Clinical Scientists, there is a dearth of data regarding experiences with the HCPC and views on the quality of regulation provided.

Findings are reported here from a 2022 survey of Medical Physicists and Engineers (one of the 16 job roles or ‘modalities’ under the umbrella of Clinical Scientist). The research aim was to assess experiences, and the level of ‘satisfaction’ with the regulator. For the remainder of this report, the term Clinical Scientist will be taken to mean Clinical Scientist (Medical Physicist/Engineer). The survey was designed to gather & explore data about opinions and experiences regarding several key aspects of how the HCPC performs its role, and perception of the quality & safety of regulation delivered.

A short survey questionnaire was developed, with questions aimed to cover the main regulatory processes, including registration & renewal, CPD audit, and fitness-to-practice. There were also questions relating more generally to HCPC’s performance as an organisation, e.g. handling of personal data. Finally, participants were asked to rate the HCPC’s overall performance and what they felt was the ‘value’ of regulation. The survey questions are listed in the Supplementary file along with this article.

Questions were carefully worded and there was a balance of open and closed questions. A five-point Likert score was used to rate closed questions. The survey was anonymous, and the questions were not compulsory, allowing the responders to skip irrelevant or difficult questions. The survey also aimed to be as short & concise as possible, to be a minimal burden to busy clinical staff & hopefully maximise response rate. There were a small number of questions at the start of the survey, to collect basic demographics on the respondents (role, grade, UK nation etc.).

The survey was advertised on the online JISC-hosted UK Medical Physics and Engineering (UKMPE) mail-base. This offered convenient access for the majority of Clinical Scientists. The survey was advertised twice, to allow for potential work absence, holiday/illness etc. It was active from the end of July 2002 until October 2022, when responses appeared to saturate.

The data is a combination of quantitative rating scores, and qualitative text responses. This allows a mixed-methods approach to data analysis, combining quantitative assessment of the Likert scoring, and (recursive) thematic analysis of the free-text answers [ 6 ]. Thematic analysis is a standard tool, and has been reported as a useful & appropriate for assessing experiences, thoughts, or behaviours in a dataset [ 7 ]. The survey questions addressed the main themes, but further themes were identified using an inductive, data-driven approach. Qualitative data analysis (QDA) was performed using NVivo (QSR International).

Two survey questions attempted to obtain an overall perception of HCPC’s performance: the direct one (Q12), and a further question’Would you recommend HCPC as a regulator…?’. This latter question doesn’t perhaps add anything more, and in fact a few respondents suggested it was a slightly awkward question, given professions do not have a choice of regulator – so that has been excluded from the analysis.

Study conduct was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations [ 8 , 9 ]. Before conducting the survey of Clinical Scientists, the survey was sent to their professional body, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). The IPEM Professional Standards Committee reviewed the survey questions [ 10 ]. Written informed consent was obtained from participants.

Data analysis

Data was collected via an MS form, in a single excel sheet and stored on a secure network drive. The respondents were anonymised, and the data checked for errors. The data was then imported into NVivo v12.

Qualitative data was manually coded for themes, and auto-coded for sentiment. An inductive approach was used to develop themes.

The sample size of responses allowed the use of simple parametric tests to establish the level of statistical significance.

Survey demographics

A total of 146 responses were collected. Two respondents noted that they worked as an HCPC Partner (a paid role). They were excluded from the analysis due to potential conflict of interest. One respondent’s responses were all blank aside from the demographic data, so they were also excluded from further analysis.

Analysis is based on 143 responses, which represents ~ 6% of the UK profession [ 11 ]. It is arguable whether it is representative of the profession at this proportion of response – but these responses do offer the only sizeable pool of data currently available. The survey was aimed at those who are on the statutory register as they are most likely to have relevant interactions & experiences of the HCPC, but a small number of responses were also received from Clinical Technologists (Medical Technical Officers-MTOs) and Engineers (CEs) and these have been included in the analysis. Figure  2 shows the breakdown in respondents, by nation.

Proportion of respondents, by nation

Of the respondents, 91% are registered Clinical Scientists, and would therefore have a broad range of experience with HCPC and its processes. Mean time on the register was 12 yrs. Respondents show a large range in seniority, and their roles are shown in Fig.  3 (CS-Clinical Scientist; CE-Clinical Engineer; MTO-Medical Technical Officer/Technician; CS-P are those working in private healthcare settings, so not on Agenda for Change (AfC) pay bands).

Breakdown in respondents, by role and pay banding

These data can be compared with the most recent HCPC ‘snapshot’ of the CS registrants (find here: Registrants by profession snapshot—1967 to 2019 | ( https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/data/2019/registrant-snapshot/ )).

The perception of overall regulator performance, can be assessed in two ways – one interview question directly asked for a rating score, and the overall survey sentiment also offers additional insight.

The score for overall performance was a median of 3 (mean 2.7; response rate 90%) which suggests neutral satisfaction.

Respondents were not asked directly to explain this overall performance rating – themes were extracted from the questionnaire as a whole.

The auto-coded sentiment scores generated in the NVivo software are shown in Table  2 . There is a significantly stronger negative sentiment than positive for HCPC performance – moderate, strong and total sentiment scores are all higher for negative sentiment. The normal test for a single proportion (109), shows the negative and positive sentiment differences have statistical significance with p  < 0.001. Whilst the PSA assessment of HCPC performance in 2022–23 shows 100% performance for 4 out of 5 assessment areas, survey data here from regulated professionals suggests considerably less satisfaction with HCPC. This raises associated questions about the relevance and validity of PSA assessment.

A large number of respondents seem to question the value of regulation. Whilst many accepted the value for it in terms of protecting the safety of the public, many questioned its relevance & benefit to themselves. Many respondents also queried the payment model where although the main beneficiaries of regulation are the public & the employer, it is the registrants actually pay the fees for registration. There was very little mention in survey responses, of benefit in terms of protected-title. These issues were amalgamated into Theme 1— Value of regulation , with the two sub-themes Value in monetary terms (value-for-money) and Value in professional terms (benefit and relevance to the individual professional) (see Table  3 ).

In the survey, several aspects of HCPC organisational performance were scored – handling of personal data, registration and renewal, engagement with the profession, audit, and the quality and usefulness of HCPC policies. These formed Theme 2 and its sub-themes.

A third theme Registrant competence and vulnerability , was developed to focus on responses to questions related to the assessment of registrant competence and Fitness To Practice (FTP) processes.

Finally, the survey also directly asked respondents if they could suggest improvements which would have resulted in higher scoring for regulation quality and performance. These were grouped into Theme 4.

Theme 1 – Value of regulation

Value in monetary terms.

The Likert score for value-for-money was a median of 2 (mean 2.3; response rate 100%) which suggests dissatisfaction. This is one of the few survey questions to elicit a 100% response rate – a clear signal of its importance for registrants.

There was a high number of responses suggesting fees are too expensive (and a significantly smaller number suggesting good value). This ties in with some respondents explaining that the ‘benefit’ from registration is mainly for the employer (an assurance of high quality, well-trained staff). Several respondents point to little ‘tangible’ benefit for registrants and query whether the payment model is fair and if the employer should pay registrant fees.

“Expensive fees for what appears to be very little support.” Resp094

“It seems that I pay about £100 per year to have my name written on a list. It is unclear to me what the HCPC actually does in order to justify such a high fee.” Resp014

“I get, quite literally, nothing from it. It’s essentially a tax on work.” Resp008

Several respondents suggested that as registration was mandated by the employer, it was in essence an additional ‘tax’ on their employment, which was highlighted previously by Unison [ 12 ]. A comparator for payment model, are the checks preformed on potential staff who will be working with children and vulnerable adults. In general, these ‘disclosure’ checks are paid for by the employer, however the checks are not recurrent cost for each individual, but done once at recruitment.

Value in professional terms & relevance

This was not a direct question on the questionnaire, but emerged consistently in survey responses. Aside from value-for-money, the value of regulation can also refer to more general benefit and relevance for a professional, for example in protecting a professional title or emphasising the importance of a role. Many respondents commented, in relation to the ‘value’ of regulation, about the relevance of the HCPC to them and their job/role.

The largest number of responses highlighted the lack of clarity about HCPC’s role, and also to note its lack of relevance felt by a significant proportion of respondents.

“Not sure I have seen any value in my registration except that it is a requirement for my role” Resp017

“I really fail to understand what (sic) the benefits of registration.” Resp018

“They do not promote the profession. I see no evidence of supporting the profession. I pay to have the title and I am not aware of any other benefits.” Resp038

Theme 2 – HCPC performance

Communication & handling data.

The survey questionnaire did not have a specific question relating to communication, therefore no specific Likert scores are available. Rather, communication was a sub-theme which emerged in survey responses. The response numbers related to positive (1) and negative experiences (50) clearly suggest an overall experience of poor communication processes (and statistically significant at p  < 0.001 for a normal proportion test).

One respondent noted they had ‘given up’ trying to communicate with HCPC electronically. Several respondents also noted issues with conventional communication—letters from HCPC going to old addresses, or being very slow to arrive.

“…I have given up on contacting by electronic means.” Resp134

When trying to renew their registration, communication with HCPC was so difficult that two respondents noted they raised a formal complaint.

A number of respondents noted that when they eventually got through to the HCPC, staff were helpful, so the main communication issue may relate to insufficiently resourced lines of communication (phones & email) or the need for a more focussed first point of contact e.g. some form of helpdesk or triaging system.

“Recently long wait to get through to speak to someone… Once through staff very helpful.” Resp126

This topic overlaps with the next (Processing Registration & renewals) in that both involve online logins, website use etc.

Security & data handling was rated as neutral (median 3, mean 3.4; response rate 91%). Although responses were balanced in terms of satisfaction, a significant number noted a lack of knowledge about HCPC processes. There are almost equal proportions of respondents reporting no issues, some problems with handling of personal data, or insufficient knowledge to express an opinion.

Registration and renewal

The score for processing registrations & renewals, was a median of 4 (mean 3.5; response rate 92%) which suggests modest satisfaction.

The overall rating also suggests that the issues may have been experienced by a comparative minority of registrants and that for most, renewal was straightforward.

“They expected people to call their phone number, which then wasn’t picked up. They didn’t reply to emails except after repeated attempts and finally having to resort to raising a complaint.” Resp023

“Difficult to get a timely response. Difficult to discuss my situation with a human being…” Resp044

Although the Likert score is positive, the themes in responses explaining the rating, are more mixed. Many respondents mentioned either having or knowing others who had issues with registration renewal, and its online processes including payments. A few respondents mentioned that the process was unforgiving of small errors. One respondent, for example, missed ticking a box on the renewal form, was removed from the register and experienced significant difficulties (poor communication with HCPC) getting the issue resolved.

Some respondents noted issues related to a long absence from work (e.g. maternity/illness etc.) causing them to miss registration deadlines – for some, this seems to have resulted in additional fees to renew registration. It seems rather easy for small errors (on either side) to result in registrants being removed from the register. For registrants, this can have very serious consequences and it can then be difficult and slow to resolve this, sometimes whilst on no pay. There have also been other reported instances of renewal payment collection errors [ 13 ].

“I had been off work… and had missed their renewal emails…I was told that there would be no allowances for this situation, and I would have to pay an additional fee to re-register…” Resp139.

Some respondents raised the issue of exclusion – certain staff groups not being included on the register—such as Clinical Technologists and Clinical Engineers. This desire for inclusion, also points to a perception of value in being on the register. One respondent raised an issue of very difficult and slow processing of registration for a candidate from outside the UK.

“Staff member who qualified as medical physicist abroad…has had a dreadful, drawn out and fruitless experience.” Resp135

Overall, many respondents noted difficulties in renewing registration and issues with HCPC’s online processes. Some of these issues (e.g. website renewal problems) may have been temporary and are now resolved, but others (e.g. available routes for registration) remain to be resolved.

Audit process & policies

In the survey, 12% respondents reported having been audited by HCPC regarding their CPD (response rate 97%). This is well above the level of 2.5% of each profession, which HCPC aims to review at each renewal [ 14 ], and similar values reported by some professional bodies [ 15 ]. The participants seem representative, although two respondents mentioned their perception of low audit rates. Data on CPD audit is available here: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/insights-and-data/cpd/cpd-audit-reports/

Respondents rated the process of being audited as a median of 4 (mean 3.7), which is the joint highest score on the survey, pointing to satisfaction with the process. From the responses, the overall perception could be summed up as straight-forward, but time-consuming. Without regular record-keeping, unfortunately most audits will be time-consuming – the HCPC more so, as it is not an annual audit, but covers the two preceding years.

Some respondents did find the process not only straight-forward, but also useful (related to feedback received). However, responses regarding feedback were mixed, with comments on both good, and poor feedback from HCPC.

“Not difficult but quite long-winded” Resp008

“Very stressful and time consuming” Resp081

“While it was a lot of work the process seemed very thorough and well explained.” Resp114

The HCPC’s policies & procedures were rated as a median of 3 (mean 3.2; response rate 98%). This neutral score could suggest a mixture of confidence in HCPC practise. This score may also reflect the fact that the majority of respondents had either not read, or felt they had no need to read the policies, and so are largely unfamiliar with them.

The reasons for this lack of familiarity are also explained by some respondents – four commented that the policies & procedures are rather too generic/vague. Three respondents noted that they felt the policies were not sufficiently relevant to their clinical roles to be useful. This may be due to the policies being written at a level to be applicable to registrants from all 16 modalities – and perhaps a limitation of the nature of HCPC as a very large regulator. Familiarity seemed mainly to be restricted to policies around registration, and CPD. There were slightly lower response levels for positive sentiment (6), than negative sentiment (9).

“I’ve never had cause to read them.” Resp115

“Detached from the real clinical interface for our professions…” Resp083

HCPC split their policies into ‘corporate’- which relate to organisational issues (e.g. equality & diversity; find them here: Our policies and procedures | ( https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/corporate-governance/freedom-of-information/policies/#:~:text=Our%20main%20policies%20and%20procedures%201%20Customer%20feedback,scheme%20...%207%20Freedom%20of%20Information%20Policy%20 )) and those more relevant to professions (e.g. relating to the register; find them here: Resources | ( https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/?Query=&Categories=76 )).

One respondent noted not only that the policies were ‘as you might expect’, but felt the policies were less demanding than those from other similar bodies such as the CQC ( https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications ).

“…Other regulatory bodies (such as the CQC for example) have policies and procedures that are a lot more challenging to comply with.” Resp022

Theme 3 – Registrant competence and vulnerability

In this survey, 3.5% (5/143) of respondents noted some involvement with the HCPC’s Fitness to Practice service. These interactions were rated at a median of 3 (mean 2.8) suggesting neutral sentiment.

Firstly, we can immediately see the level of interaction with the FTP team is very small. CS registrants represent approx. 2% of HCPC registrants, and the level of CS referrals to FTP in 2020–21 was 0.2% [ 16 ].

The data is a very small sample, but responses vary strongly, so it is worth digging a little further into the granularity of individual responses. Response scores were 1, 1, 2, 5, 5 – which are mainly at the extremes of the rating spectrum. The majority of respondents described poor experiences with the FTP team: errors, a process which was ‘extremely prolonged’, involved slow/poor communication, and processes which were ‘entirely opaque’.

“It is slow, the process was badly managed… and the system was entirely opaque,” Resp37

“They were hard to contact and I didn't feel they listened…no explanation, apology or assurance it would not happen again. It left my colleague disillusioned and me very angry on their behalf…” Resp044

Some respondents commented that the team were not only difficult to contact, but also didn’t seem to listen. At the end of a process which involved errors from HCPC, one respondent noted were ‘no explanation, apologies or assurance that it would not happen again’, leaving the registrant ‘disillusioned’. These experiences do not fit with the HCPC’s stated goal to be a compassionate regulator, see Fig.  4 . Arguably it is more difficult to change a culture of behaviour and beliefs, than to publish a corporate goal or statement of vision.

HCPC’s vision statement & purpose [ 17 ]

Some survey respondents have noted the necessity of regulation for our profession.

“Ultimately I am very grateful that I can register as a professional.” Resp024

Theme 4 – Suggestions for improved regulation

Following the question relating to overall performance, respondents were invited to suggest things which might improve their rating for HCPC’s performance and value. These suggestions were also combined with those which appeared in earlier survey responses.

Although we are in a current cost-of-living crisis, responses did not query simply high absolute cost of fees, but also queried the value/benefit of HCPC regulation for registrants. Many responses expressed doubt as to the added value & relevance of HCPC registration for them. They seem to point to a desire for more tangible benefit from their fees. Perhaps, given the costs and levels of scrutiny, registrants want some definite benefit to balance the scales .

“Cost less and do more for the people who are on the register.” Resp089

“Vastly reduced cost. Employer paying registrant fees.” Resp074

A significant number of responses pointed out that the main benefits of registration are for the public, and for employers – but that it is the registrants who pay for registration. Many queries why this should be, and whether there should be a different payment model, where for example employers pay.

Similarly, some respondents felt that the HCPC’s unusual position of regulating a large swathe of healthcare professions was not necessarily helpful for their profession or others.

Communication and response times are obviously an issue of concern for registrants, and improvements are needed based on the low satisfaction levels reported here. This is also linked to a wish for increased engagement with the CS profession.

“Engagement with the workforce, specialism specific development, reduced fees” Resp025

Some responses suggested they would be comforted by increased accountability / governance of HCPC including improved FTP efficiency.

“More accountability to registrants” Resp130

Finally, improvement in terms of additional registration routes for Engineers & Technical staff were also suggested. It may be damaging to work-place moral, if two professionals doing roles of a similar nature are not being governanced is the same way and if there is not parity of their gross salary due to mandatory professional fees & reductions.

Value-for-money : This will vary between individuals depending on many variables, such as upbringing & environment, salary, lifestyle priorities, political persuasion, and so on. However, many of these factors should balance in a large sample. In general, it can be suggestive of satisfaction (or lack of) with a service. The score here suggesting dissatisfaction, echoes with other reports on HCPC’s spending, and financial irregularities [ 18 , 19 ].

In the survey findings, respondents have voiced dissatisfaction with registration value for money. In fact, HCPC’s registration fees are not high when compared to the other healthcare professions regulators. Table 1 shows data from 2021–22 for regulator annual registration fees. However, the HCPC has risen from having the lowest regulator fees in 2014–5, to its current position (9 th of 13) slightly higher in the table. Perhaps more concerning than the absolute level of fees, are when large increases are proposed [ 12 , 20 , 21 , 22 ].

However, fees have regularly increased to current figure of £196.48 for a two-year cycle. During a consultation process in 2018, the Academy for Healthcare Clinical Scientists (AHCS) wrote an open letter to the HCPC, disputing what they felt was a disproportionate fee increase [ 23 ]. Further fee rises have also been well above the level of inflation at the time.

HCPC expenditure (which is linked to registration fees) has arguably been even more controversial than fee increases – noted by several respondents. A freedom of information (FOI) request in 2016 showed HCPC’s spending of £17,000 for their Christmas party [ 18 ] – which amounts to just over £76 per person. This cost was close to the annual registration fee (at that time) for registrants.

In 2019, regulation of social workers in England moved from HCPC, to Social Work England. This resulted in a loss of over 100,000 registrants, and a loss in registration fee income. HCPC raised fees to compensate, but a freedom of information (FoI) request in 2020 [ 18 ] showed that even though there was an associated lowering in workload associated with the loss of 100 k registrants, the HCPC had no redundancies, suggesting the loss of income was compensated mainly by the fees increase.

Inherent value & relevance

One of HCPC’s aims is to promote ‘the value of regulation’ [ 24 ]. However, not only is there dissatisfaction with value-for-money, the second highest response suggests a lack of inherent value (or benefit) from regulation to the individual registrant. In some ways, there is a lack of balance – registrants are under increasing scrutiny, but feel there is little direct benefit, to provide balance.

This also suggests that HCPC’s aim or message is not getting through to the CS profession. It’s not clear what the HCPC 2021–22 achieved milestone – ‘Embedded our registrant experiences research into employee learning and development and inductions’ has actually achieved.

A large number of responses pointed to the lack of clarity about HCPC’s role, and also to note its lack of relevance for respondents. Some of this is understandable – until recently, many CS registrants will have little interaction with HCPC. They would typically get one email reminder each year to renew their registration and pay those fees, and hear little else from the HCPC. That is beginning to change, and HCPC have recently begun to send more regular, direct emails/updates to registrants.

However, for many registrants, the HCPC appears not to be clearly communicating its role, or the relevance/importance of regulation. As mentioned above, this also links in to previous mentions of the lack of any tangible benefit for registrants. Some note little more relevance other than the mandatory aspects of regulation.

Finally, relevance is also queried in relation to the limited access for some professional groups to a professional register. The current situation of gaps in registration for some groups, results in two situations – firstly, for Clinical Scientists and Clinical Engineers/Technologists, one group has to compulsorily pay a fee to be allowed/approved to do their job and the other does not; also, the public are routinely helped and assisted by Clinical Scientists and Clinical Engineers/Technologists – but only one group is regulated to ensure public safety.

HCPC Communication

This was highlighted by respondents as often poor. Recently in the media, there has been a concern raised by The College of Paramedics (CoP) about communications issues with HCPC—changes to the HCPC policy on the use of social media [ 25 ]. They raised particular concerns about the use of social media content and ‘historical content’ in the context of investigations of fitness-to practice.

There have previously been some concerns raised on the UKMPE mail-base regarding handling of personal data, and lack of efficiency in addressing the issue [ 26 ]. Several messages detailed HCPC communicating unencrypted registrant passwords in emails and sending personal data to the incorrect registrant. Some on the forum noted that they had reported this problem over a period of several years to HCPC, suggesting HCPC’s response to these serious issues was extremely slow. Several responses noted these previous issues.

Registration processes

Although responses here show some satisfaction, there have been reports in the media of significant issues with registration (such as removing registrants from the register in error) with associated impact for patients and the public [ 27 , 28 ]. Similarly, there were reports on the UKMPE mail-base of significant issues with registration renewals being problematic [ 26 ]. In Scotland, NHS.net email accounts ceased to be supported in July-Sept 2020 and the associated lack of access to email accounts and messages used for HCPC communication and registration, caused a major issue in registration renewal. This coincided with COVID lockdowns and a period of unusually difficult communication with HCPC. If NHS staff lose registration (irrespective of the reason), respondents noted that some Human Resources (HR) departments were quick to suspend staff from work, and in some cases withhold pay. That spike in difficulties is likely the cause of the most common responses suggesting issues with a complicated process.

In safe-guarding public safety, a key task for a healthcare regulator is assessing the competence of registrants. This is done via a small set of related activities. Registrants must return regular evidence of CPD, and these are audited for 2.5% registrants. This process is simple and routine, and as seen in Theme 2 responses here suggest registrants are reasonably satisfied with this process.

More formal and in-depth competence assessment happens when a complaint is raised against a registrant, either by a work colleague/management, a member of the public or occasionally by the HCPC itself. The process is complex, lengthy and can end in a registrant attending a court hearing [ 29 ].

It is usual for registrants to continue in their normal job during FTP investigations – effectively the public remains at risk from a registrant if their competence is eventually proven to be below the regulators standards, so there is a need for investigations to be efficient both in timeliness, and outcome.

Obviously, being under investigation can be highly stressful, and has the potential for the registrant to be ‘struck off’ the register, and lose their job if registration is mandated (e.g. NHS posts). There are many reports of the process & experience either provoking or increasing underlying mental health challenges [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Along with efficiency, a regulator needs to behave compassionately. Investigations of highly-skilled professionals engaging in complex work activities, is also necessarily complex and requires a high degree of knowledge and experience from the regulator’s investigational panel.

The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) regulate the HCPC, and publish annual reviews of their performance ( https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/performance-reviews ) (see Table  4 ). HCPC performance as reported by PSA, seems to be generally higher than noted by survey respondents here. For 2022–23, aside from one area, the HCPC has scored 100% for performance, which seems at odds with these survey responses [ 33 ]. The FTP team is notable in repeatedly performing very poorly compared to most other sections of the HCPC (even though the majority of the HCPC budget goes to FTP activity, see Fig.  4 ). The HCPC Annual Report 2018–9 [ 34 ] highlighted the completion of the first phase of the Fitness-To-Practice Improvement Plan. This delivered “A root and branch review of this regulatory function… a restructure, tightened roles and processes and the introduction of a new Threshold Policy”, but this seems to have no impact on the performance reported by the PSA for the next few years shown in Table  4 . However, the most recent data does suggest improvement, and HCPC continues to develop FTP team practice [ 17 ].

HCPC expenditure for the year 2020–21 [ 17 ]

There are other reports of poor experiences with this team [ 35 , 36 ], and in one report the FTP team’s processes have been noted as being rather inhumane [ 35 ].

Regulation is an important part of public protection, but how effectively it is managed & enforced is also a concern, given it involves increased scrutiny of registrants. A topical comparator is the current dissatisfaction by a large section of the public about several other government regulators allowing seemingly poor performance to go unchecked [ 4 , 5 ].

It is arguable, that registrants remain on the register as long as the HCPC allows them. Several respondents in this survey noted being removed from the register through HCPC administrative error. Removal could also happen through poor judgement/decision-making – the FTP team handle large numbers of very complex investigational cases – 1603 concluded cases for the year 2021–22 and 1024 hearings [ 16 ]. Every justice system is subject to a level of error – guilty parties can be erroneously ‘cleared’, and vice-versa. It is essential therefore, that policies & procedures relating to FTP are fit for purpose—that the FTP team work effectively and humanely, and that there is genuine & effective governance of HCPC to ensure accountability. In this survey, some respondents seem to be saying that currently this seems not to be the case.

It might have been anticipated that the greatest concern is costs, especially in the current cost-of-living crisis. The recent HCPC consultation to increase fees [ 37 ] seems particularly tone-deaf and has caused concern across the professions [ 21 , 22 ].

Above findings show respondents are interested in lower fees, but also increased benefit for their fees. Some respondents pointed out that whilst registrants pay for registration, benefit is mainly for the public and employers. The HCPC is a statutory body, its funding model will have been designed/decided upon by government, and may be unlikely to change. However, there are a variety of potential regulation models [ 38 ], and so change is possible. A review of the financial model for regulation may be welcome.

Regulator size

Some aspects of HCPC performance, policies, and distribution of spending, is related to the nature of it being the largest and only multi-professional regulator in the healthcare sector. Data from the HCPC suggests (see Fig.  5 ) that the majority of spending relates to FTP activity. Data also points to Clinical Scientists having very low levels of FTP investigation compared to others in HCPC [ 16 ]. This suggests that a significant proportion of CS registrant fees are used to investigate other professions. It’s possible (perhaps simplistically) that if, like many other healthcare professions such as doctors & dentists who’s regulator is concerned only with that single profession, if CSs were regulated separately, their registrant fees may be reduced. This model of single-profession regulation may also mitigate against other disadvantages of the HCPC’s practice, such as the ‘generic’ policies aiming to apply to a pool of 15 professions.

Although there is a very low level of data for this topic, the concerned raised by registrants are serious in nature. There also seems to be issues in handling of complaints related to this service and advocacy for registrants. Certainly, there is a clear governance path via PSA, to the Health Secretary. However, this does not offer a route for individual complaints to be raised and addressed. Unlike complaints from the public in other areas, there is no recourse to an ombudsman for registrants. The only option for individual registrants, is the submission of a formal complaint to the HCPC itself, which is dealt with internally. Comments from survey respondents suggest this process does not guarantee satisfaction. Indeed, one of the respondents who mentioned submitting a complaint, made it clear they remained unhappy with HCPC’s response. Overall, there seems to be a lack of clear & effective advocacy for registrants.

“…the HCPC’s stance appeared to be guilty until proven innocent… At no point did I feel the HCPC cared that their (sic) was an individual involved....” Resp044.

FTP processes affect a comparatively small number of CS registrants, compared to other professions. However, it seems clear that the majority of those who have interacted with the FTP team have had poor experiences, and respondents have suggested improvements are needed. The reason for FTP investigations, is protection of staff and the public. If processes are slow, and investigations prolonged, or decisions flawed, the public may be exposed to increased levels of risk, as healthcare practitioners who may be lacking in competence continue to practice. The data in Table  4 shows concerning but improving trends in FTP performance levels.

Limitations

There are two main limitations to this work. Firstly, due to time constraints, there was no pilot work done when designing the survey questionnaire. This may have helped, as noted earlier, a few responses pointed to some awkwardness with one survey question. Although no pilot work was done, the questionnaire was reviewed by the IPEM Professional Standards Committee, as noted in the Acknowledgements section.

The other obvious limitation is the low response rate (~ 6% of UK Medical Physicists). Circulation of the survey was performed via the only online forum for the profession currently available. The survey was advertised multiple times to ensure visibility to staff who may have missed it initially due to leave etc. However, the forum does reach 100% of the profession, and some addressees may have filters set to send specific posts to junk folders etc. The professional body IPEM declined to offer support in circulating the survey (believing the issues involved would affect/be of interest only to a small minority of members.)

The low response rate also has a particular impact on the pool of responses relating to FTP issues, which inherently affect low numbers of registrants.

However, the importance of some of the findings here (e.g. expressed dissatisfaction with regulation in terms of value; the poor experience of some members with the Registration, Communication and FTP teams) and the low sample surveyed, both justify the need for a larger follow-on survey, across all of Clinical Science.

In Healthcare, regulation of professions is a key aspect of protecting the public. However, to be effective, regulation must be performed professionally, impartially, and associated concerns or complaints investigated efficiently and respectfully.

This report presents findings from a survey aimed at collecting a snap-shot of the experiences of Clinical Scientists with their regulator, and their perception of the quality and safety of that regulation performance.

Overall survey sentiment scores showed a significantly more negative responses than positive. Survey comments relate not only to current issues, but to previous problems and controversial issues [ 18 , 26 ]. It seems that some respondents have at some point lost confidence and trust in the HCPC, and survey responses suggest there has not been enough engagement and work done by HCPC to repair and rebuild this trust.

In the midst of a cost of living crisis, costs are a large concern for many. The HCPC fees are neither the highest not lowest amongst the healthcare regulators. Spending is transparent, and details can be found in any of the HCPC’s annual reports.

A repeating sub-theme in responses, was a lack of tangible value for the registrant, and that the employer should pay the costs of registration, where registration is mandated by the job.

Many respondents have suggested that they feel there should be more proactive engagement from HCPC with the profession. Most respondents were not familiar with or felt the HCPC policies are relevant/important to them.

Survey data showed moderate satisfaction with registration processes for the majority of respondents. Some respondents also noted a lack of registration route for engineering & technical healthcare staff. CPD processes also achieved a score indicating registrant satisfaction. This generated the highest ratings in the survey. Communication scored poorly and many respondents suggests there needs to be improved levels of communication in terms of response times and access to support.

The CS profession experiences low levels of interaction with the FTP service. However, those interactions which were recorded in the survey, show some poor experiences for registrants. There also seems to be a lack of advocacy/route for complaints about HCPC from individual registrants. There may need to be more engagement between registrants and their professional body regarding HCPC performance, and more proactivity from the stake-holder, IPEM.

Some of the findings reported here relate to important issues, but the survey data are based on a low response rate. A larger survey across all of Clinical Science is being planned.

Availability of data and materials

To protect confidentiality of survey respondents, the source data is not available publicly, but are available from the author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Agenda for Change

Academy for Healthcare Clinical Scientists

Continuous professional development

Clinical Engineer

Clinical Scientist

College of Paramedics

Clinical Technologist

Freedom of Information

Fitness-to-practice

Health and Care Professions Council

Human resources

Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine

Joint Information Systems Committee

Medical Technical Officer

Professional Standards Authority

Professional Standards Committee

Qualitative data analysis

UK Medical Physics and Engineering

Professional Standards Authority. Professional healthcare regulation in the UK. https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/news-and-blog/blog/detail/blog/2018/04/10/professional-healthcare-regulation-explained#:~:text=Regulation%20is%20simply%20a%20way,may%20face%20when%20receiving%20treatment . Accessed 26 Jul 2023

Evening Standard. Bogus surgeon treated hundreds. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bogus-surgeon-treated-hundreds-6326549.html . Accessed 26 Jul 2023.

HCPC . About registration: protected titles. http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ . Accessed 27 Jul 23.

The Guardian. Public patience is wearing thin. Ofwat must wield the big stick | Nils Pratley |  https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2022/dec/08/public-patience-is-wearing-thin-ofwat-must-wield-the-big-stick . Accessed 19 Jul 2023.

TrustPilot. Reviews of Ofgem. Ofgem Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of ofgem.com (trustpilot.com). Accessed 19 Jul 2023.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846–54.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ . Accessed 12 Sept 2023.

UK Data Protection Act. 2018. https://www.gov.uk/data-protection . Accessed 15 Sept 2023.

Rowbottom C. Private communication on behalf of the IPEM Professional Standards Committee; 2022.

IPEM Workforce Team. Clinical scientist & engineer workforce data. Personal communication. 2022.

Unison. HCPC fee increase is an unjustified ‘tax on practising.’ https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-release/2019/02/hcpc-fee-increase-unjustified-tax-practising/ . Accessed 27 Jul 2023.

HCPC. Direct debit collection errors. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/news-and-events/news/2020/early-direct-debit-collections/?dm_i=2NJF,141CO,7C0ZNI,4A8IE,1 . Accessed 27 Jul 23.

HCPC. CPD audit rates. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/cpd/cpd-audits/ . Accessed 21 Jul 2023.

IPEM. CPD audit rates. https://www.ipem.ac.uk/your-career/cpd-career-development/cpd-audit/ . Accessed 21 Jul 2023.

HCPC. Fitness to practice annual report 2020–21. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/insights-and-data/ftp/fitness-to-practise-annual-report-2020-21/ . Accessed 23 Jul 2023.

HCPC. Annual report and accounts, 2020–21. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/reports/2022/annual-report-and-accounts-2020-21/ . Accessed 19 Jul 2023.

Wikipedia. The health and care professions council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Care_Professions_Council . Accessed 2 Jul 23.

HCPC. Annual report 2005–06. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/reports/2006/annual-report-2005-06/ . Accessed 19 Jul 2023.

British Dental Association. BDA very disappointed by HCPC decision to raise registration fees by 18%. https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/bda-very-disappointed-by-hcpc-decision-to-raise-registration-fees-by-18.html . Accessed 27 Jul 2023.

British Psychological Society. HCPC fees consultation – share your views. https://www.bps.org.uk/news/hcpc-fee-consultation-share-your-views . Accessed 27 Jul 23.

IBMS. IBMS response to the HCPC registration fees consultation. https://www.ibms.org/resources/news/ibms-response-to-hcpc-registration-fees-consultation/ . Accessed 17 Jul 23.

Association of HealthCare Scientists. Open letter to HCPC. https://www.ahcs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HCPC-Open-Letter.pdf . Accessed 27 Jul 23.

HCPC. Corporate plan 2022–23. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/reports/2022/hcpc-corporate-plan-2022-23/ . Accessed 23 Jul 2023.

College of Paramedics. Our formal response to the HCPC consultation. https://collegeofparamedics.co.uk/COP/News/2023/Our%20formal%20response%20to%20the%20HCPC%20consultation.aspx . Accessed 27 Jul 23.

JISC Mail - MPE mailbase. JISCMail - Medical-physics-engineering list at www.jiscmail.ac.uk . Accessed 19 July 2023.

The Guardian. Thousands miss out on treatment as physiotherapists are taken off UK register. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/14/thousands-miss-out-on-treatment-as-physiotherapists-are-struck-off-uk-register . Accessed 27 Jul 2023.

HSJJobs.com. https://www.hsjjobs.com/article/thousands-of-clinicians-unable-to-work-after-registration-blunder . Accessed 27 Jul 2023.

HCPC. How we investigate. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/concerns/how-we-investigate/ . Accessed 21 Nov 2023.

Sirriyeh R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Armitage G. Coping with medical error: a systematic review of papers to assess the effects of involvement in medical errors on healthcare professionals’ psychological well-being. Br Med J Qual Saf. 2010;19:6.

Google Scholar  

Bourne T, Wynants L, Peters M, van Audenhove C, Timmerman D, van Calster B, et al. The impact of complaints procedures on the welfare, health and clinical practise of 7926 doctors in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006687.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jones-Berry S. Suicide risk for nurses during fitness to practice process. Ment Health Pract. 2016;19:8.

Professional Standards Authority. HCPC performance review 2022–23. https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/performance-review-detail/periodic-review-hcpc-2022-23 . Accessed 25 Jul 2023

HCPC. Annual report and accounts, 2018–19. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/resources/reports/2019/hcpc-annual-report-and-accounts-2018-19/ . Accessed 19 Jul 2023.

Maben J, Hoinville L, Querstret D, Taylor C, Zasada M, Abrams R. Living life in limbo: experiences of healthcare professionals during the HCPC fitness to practice investigation process in the UK. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:839–54.

Leigh J, Worsley A, Richard C, McLaughlin K. An analysis of HCPC fitness to practise hearings: fit to practise or fit for purpose? Ethics Soc Welfare. 2017;11(4):382–96.

HCPC. Consultation changes to fees. https://www.hcpc-uk.org/news-and-events/consultations/2022/consultation-on-changes-to-fees/ . Accessed 27 Jul 23

Department of Health. Review of the regulation of public health professions. London: DoH; 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to kindly acknowledge the input of Dr Carl Rowbottom (IPEM Professional Standards Committee), in reviewing the survey questions. Thanks also to Dr Nina Cockton for helpful advice on ethics and recruitment issues.

There were no sources of funding required for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Glasgow, Level 2, ICE Building, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, UK

Mark McJury

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All work to collect, analyse & publish this survey, are the work of the author Dr Mark McJury.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark McJury .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As this study relates to low risk, survey data, formal ethics committee approval is not required (exemption obtained from NHSGGC REC04 REC Officer Dr Judith Godden [email protected]). As the survey responses were from members of a professional body (The Institute of Medical Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) it was consulted. Its Professional Standards Committee (PSC) reviewed the survey and raised no objections. The survey questions were assessed for bias and approved unchanged (acknowledged in the manuscript). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

The survey questionnaire has been provided as a supplementary file.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McJury, M. Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 635 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10956-7

Download citation

Received : 06 September 2023

Accepted : 05 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10956-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Regulation of professions
• Clinical scientists
• Medical physicists

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]