Fitness to Practise Explained

If you're reading this because you've just been notified of an investigation yourself, the single most important thing to do is skip ahead to "What to do if you're notified" below and get advice from your defence organisation, union or a specialist solicitor before you do anything else. Everything on this page is general orientation, not a substitute for that.

What "fitness to practise" actually means

Each of the health and care regulators exists to protect the public by maintaining a register of professionals who meet the standards required to practise safely. "Fitness to practise" is the test they apply when a concern is raised: broadly, whether your ability to practise safely and professionally is currently impaired, taking into account things like clinical competence, conduct, health, and criminal convictions. A single mistake, a difficult period of ill health, or a misunderstanding does not automatically mean fitness to practise is impaired — regulators generally look at the whole picture, including insight, remediation, and the risk of repetition, not just the original incident in isolation.

The broad categories of concern, and what "insight" and "remediation" actually mean

Fitness to Practise concerns aren't all the same shape, and the regulators broadly group them into a small number of recognised categories, each of which tends to be looked at slightly differently:

• • Conduct — behaviour that falls short of professional standards: dishonesty, a serious boundary violation, bullying, or similarly serious misconduct.
• • Competence / performance — a pattern of clinical practice that falls below the expected standard, generally assessed against a sustained pattern of concern rather than a single isolated error.
• • Health — a physical or mental health condition that may be affecting a professional's ability to practise safely, treated as its own distinct category with a different emphasis (see the FAQ below).
• • Criminal convictions and cautions — a conviction or caution that a professional is generally required to self-report, which the regulator then considers for its relevance to fitness to practise, rather than automatically treating every conviction as career-ending.

Whichever category a concern falls into, panels weighing an outcome generally return to two ideas that come up constantly in Fitness to Practise decisions and are worth understanding in plain terms: insight and remediation. Insight broadly means whether the professional genuinely understands what went wrong and why it matters — not just saying the right words, but demonstrating real reflection on the impact of their actions or omissions. Remediation means the concrete steps taken since the concern arose to address it: additional training, supervision, a period of reflective practice, treatment for a health condition, or changes to how someone works. Broadly speaking, strong, well-evidenced insight and remediation tend to support a more proportionate outcome, because they speak directly to the question a panel is actually there to answer — not "did something go wrong in the past," but "is fitness to practise currently impaired, and what's the risk of repetition." This is exactly why representatives generally advise gathering evidence of reflection, learning and any remedial steps as early as possible, rather than waiting until close to a hearing — it takes time to build a credible record, and a late, thin reflective statement tends to carry far less weight than a sustained one.

The general stages (broadly, not for any one specific regulator)

The NMC, GMC, HCPC and GPhC each run their own process under their own legislation, and the exact procedural detail — timescales, terminology, the names of stages and panels — differs between them and does change over time as rules are updated. That said, most of these processes broadly share a similar overall shape:

• • A concern or referral is received — from an employer, a colleague, a patient, a member of the public, the police, or sometimes self-referral.
• • Initial screening or triage — the regulator assesses whether the concern, if true, could amount to impaired fitness to practise and falls within its remit at all. Many concerns are closed at this stage with no further action.
• • Investigation — if the concern proceeds, evidence is gathered: statements from those involved, employer records, sometimes an independent expert clinical opinion, and a response from the professional themselves.
• • A decision on 'case to answer' — a decision-maker or committee considers whether there's a realistic prospect that a panel could find fitness to practise impaired, based on the evidence gathered.
• • A hearing or panel process — if there's a case to answer, it's usually considered by an independent panel, which may hear evidence and reach findings of fact before deciding on impairment and, if relevant, sanction.
• • An outcome — ranging from no further action, through advice or a warning, to undertakings, conditions of practice, suspension, or removal from the register.

What's consistent across all of them is that this can take a genuinely long time. Investigations that run for many months are common, and more complex or contested cases can take considerably longer than that. Living with an open, unresolved case hanging over your career for an extended period is, by most accounts, one of the hardest parts of the whole experience — often harder than any single stage of the process itself. If you're in the middle of that wait, it's a normal and proportionate reaction to find it stressful; it doesn't mean anything about how the case is likely to end.

Interim orders: restrictions before anything is proven

One of the parts of this system that people often find hardest to come to terms with is the possibility of an interim order — a suspension or conditions placed on your practice while the investigation is still ongoing, before any panel has made a final finding against you.

Interim orders exist because regulators have a duty to protect the public, and occasionally a concern is serious enough, or immediate enough, that a regulator judges it can't simply wait for the full investigation to run its course before doing anything. They're generally meant to be used only where there's considered to be a real and pressing risk — to patients, to public confidence in the profession, or to the professional's own health — not as a routine first step, and they are the exception rather than the rule; most professionals under investigation continue working throughout.

None of that makes an interim order feel any less devastating if it happens to you. Being told you can't work, or can only work under restrictions, while nothing has actually been proven, can feel deeply unjust — and in a real sense it is a serious step taken on the basis of risk and precaution, not guilt. It affects your income, your sense of identity as a professional, and often your mental health, all before the underlying concern has even been fully looked into. If an interim order is proposed or imposed on you, that is precisely the moment to have experienced representation in your corner — interim order decisions can typically be reviewed, appealed, or revisited periodically, and good advice early can materially affect how long any restriction lasts.

What to do if you're notified of an investigation

If a letter or email arrives telling you a concern has been raised about you, it's normal to feel shaken. A few practical steps tend to help, roughly in this order:

• • Read the notification carefully and note every deadline. Regulators usually give you a specific window to respond — missing it can close off options, so mark the date immediately even before you've decided what to say.
• • Get advice or representation before you respond to anyone. Doctors should contact their defence organisation (MDU, MPS or MDDUS) straight away; nurses, midwives, paramedics and allied health professionals should contact their union or professional body (e.g. RCN, Unison, GMB, or the relevant college) or their own indemnity provider. If your situation is complex, ask about a solicitor specialising in healthcare regulatory law.
• • Don't respond to the regulator, or discuss the details informally with colleagues, until you've had advice on what to say and how. An early, unguided response — even one written with good intentions — can sometimes create difficulties later. This isn't about hiding anything; it's about making sure your account is presented clearly and fairly.
• • Tell your employer only as required, and check what that requirement actually is. Your representative can advise on this — don't assume you need to disclose more than is actually required at this stage.
• • Keep your own records — dates, copies of correspondence, and a private note of what happened from your perspective while it's fresh, for your representative's use.
• • Look after your wellbeing. Being investigated is recognised as one of the most stressful experiences a healthcare professional can go through, even when the underlying concern turns out to be minor or unfounded. Services exist specifically for this — NHS Practitioner Health supports doctors and dentists dealing with mental health and wellbeing concerns including the stress of regulatory processes, and many unions, defence organisations and Employee Assistance Programmes offer confidential counselling too. Using this kind of support isn't a weakness and doesn't affect your case — it's part of getting through it.

Where this can overlap with whistleblowing

Sometimes a Fitness to Practise concern arises in a context that's tangled up with a workplace dispute or a safety concern someone raised — for example, a professional who raised a concern about patient safety or staffing then finds themselves the subject of a counter-complaint. If that sounds like your situation, it's worth understanding your separate legal protections for raising concerns in good faith — see our companion guide on NHS whistleblowing rights and Freedom to Speak Up. A specialist solicitor or your union can advise on how the two situations interact in your specific case.

Get notified about regulatory and careers updates

We'll email you when we publish new guidance on professional regulation, pay, and NHS careers.

Notify me

Which regulator covers you

Which regulator handles a Fitness to Practise concern depends on your profession:

• • NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) — nurses and midwives. See our nursing pay and careers guide.
• • GMC (General Medical Council) — doctors. See our medicine pay and careers guide.
• • HCPC (Health and Care Professions Council) — paramedics, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, healthcare scientists and other allied health professions. See our paramedics guide.
• • GPhC (General Pharmaceutical Council) — pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. See our pharmacy guide.

Each regulator publishes its own current guidance and process detail on its own website, which is the authoritative source for exact current procedure — this page is intended as general orientation only, not a substitute for that or for professional advice specific to your case.

Related guides

Frequently asked questions

Will I lose my job during an investigation? +

Not automatically. A regulator's Fitness to Practise investigation is separate from your employer's own internal disciplinary or capability process, though the two sometimes run alongside each other and the same underlying concern can trigger both. Losing your job would normally only happen through your employer's own process (or if you resign), not simply because a regulator has opened a case — though obviously a serious outcome from either process can affect the other. Talk to your defence organisation or union about how the two processes interact in your specific situation.

Can I keep working while I'm under investigation? +

In the majority of cases, yes — most Fitness to Practise investigations proceed with the professional continuing to work as normal while the case is looked into, sometimes for many months. The exception is where the regulator (or your employer) considers there's a serious and immediate risk to patient safety or public confidence, in which case an interim order restricting or suspending your practice can be imposed before the investigation has concluded. This is the minority of cases, not the default.

What's the difference between a warning and being struck off? +

These sit at opposite ends of a wide range of possible outcomes. A warning (sometimes called an 'advice' or a formal caution depending on the regulator) records a finding but leaves you free to practise unrestricted. In between, a panel can impose undertakings or conditions of practice — specific, monitored restrictions on how or where you work for a set period. Suspension removes you from the register temporarily, usually with a review before you can return. Being struck off (removed from the register, sometimes called 'erasure') is the most serious outcome, ending your registration and generally requiring a fresh application after a minimum period before you could ever practise again. Panels are meant to choose the outcome proportionate to the risk and the facts found — not every finding of impairment ends in removal, and most don't.

Do I need a solicitor, or can my union represent me? +

Many nurses, midwives, paramedics and allied health professionals are represented through their union or professional body (such as the RCN, Unison, GMB, or the relevant college) at no direct cost, and this is often perfectly adequate representation, especially at earlier stages. Doctors typically hold indemnity cover through the MDU, MPS or MDDUS, which usually includes access to specialist regulatory advice from the point a concern is first raised. Whether you need an independent solicitor specialising in healthcare regulatory law tends to depend on how serious and complex the concern is, and how far the case progresses — your union, defence body or indemnity provider can usually advise on this directly, and it costs nothing to ask them early rather than waiting.

How long does a Fitness to Practise investigation usually take? +

There's no single fixed timescale, and it varies significantly by regulator, complexity, and caseload — but many cases take many months from referral to a final decision, and more complex or contested cases can take a year or considerably longer. This is widely recognised as one of the hardest parts of the process for the person involved, since a case can remain open and unresolved for a long stretch of your working life. Ask the regulator (or your representative) for an estimated timeline for your case and keep asking for updates — you're entitled to know roughly where things stand.

What happens if the investigation finds no case to answer? +

If, after screening or investigation, the regulator decides your fitness to practise isn't impaired or there's no realistic prospect of a finding against you, the case is closed with no further action and no mark is normally left on your registration. This is a common outcome — a referral being made, or even investigated, is not evidence of wrongdoing, and plenty of concerns are raised in good faith that don't ultimately meet the threshold for action.

Can a concern raised out of malice or a misunderstanding still lead to an investigation? +

Yes — regulators generally have to look into concerns that meet their threshold for investigation regardless of the referrer's motive, because part of their job is screening out the ones that shouldn't proceed. If you believe a concern about you was raised in bad faith or is based on a misunderstanding, say so clearly and early to your representative so it can be addressed directly in your response, ideally with any evidence or context that supports your account.

Can an interim order be reviewed or lifted before the main investigation finishes? +

Generally, yes — interim orders are not usually meant to be fixed for the entire length of an investigation without any check on whether they're still necessary. Regulators typically build in periodic reviews, and a professional (through their representative) can usually also apply for an early review if their circumstances change or if they believe the order is no longer justified. How often reviews happen, and how a specific review is conducted, varies by regulator and by case, so ask your representative what the review timetable looks like for your particular order rather than assuming a fixed pattern.

Does an open Fitness to Practise investigation show up on a DBS check? +

An open investigation that hasn't reached any adverse finding wouldn't typically appear on a standard or enhanced DBS check, which is generally concerned with convictions, cautions and certain police information rather than an ongoing regulatory process. What can become visible to a future employer is your entry on the regulator's own register, which for some outcomes (such as conditions of practice or suspension) may show a public annotation — and a prospective NHS employer carrying out pre-employment checks would generally check your registration status directly with the regulator as a matter of course. If you're concerned about how a live case might affect a specific job application, ask your union, defence organisation or the regulator directly rather than assuming either way.

Can I still work for a different NHS trust or employer while under investigation? +

In most cases, yes — unless an interim order specifically restricts or suspends your practice, a Fitness to Practise investigation on its own doesn't stop you working, including for a new employer, since your registration remains active and unrestricted throughout. That said, many NHS pre-employment checks ask directly whether you're currently subject to a live regulatory investigation, and answering honestly is important — non-disclosure, if later discovered, can itself become a separate and more serious concern. Your representative can advise on exactly what you're required to disclose and when.

What happens if the concern is about my health rather than my conduct or competence? +

Health-related Fitness to Practise concerns are treated as their own distinct category by every regulator, generally with a stronger emphasis on support, occupational health input and a path back to safe practice than on sanction, reflecting the underlying idea that impaired fitness to practise due to a health condition is a different kind of problem from misconduct or poor performance. That doesn't mean health concerns are never serious — they can still lead to conditions or, in a minority of cases, suspension if patient safety is genuinely at risk — but the process typically leans more heavily on medical evidence and a genuine opportunity to demonstrate the condition is being managed. If your case has a health dimension, make sure your representative and, where relevant, your own treating clinician are involved early.