Unreliable verification of clinicians’ competence before independent clinical practice
First to latest report 13 Apr 2014 — 17 Sep 2025
Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
2
Stated actions linked to this concern
2
What this concern includes
Includes failures of credentialing, practising-privileges, competence-verification or cross-Trust training-record processes where they determine whether a clinician may practise independently or undertake clinical duties without direct scrutiny, including assessment of prior experience, evidence of competence and approval by the responsible hospital or credentialing body.
What is not included
Excludes general professional registration or fitness-to-practise checks where the specific concern is not verification of competence or suitability for independent clinical practice.
Excludes supervision, training quality or staffing deficiencies where no failure to verify competence before independent work is identified.
Excludes failures limited to permanent employment, appraisal or post-appointment performance monitoring when the unsafe condition is not the initial or continuing authorisation to practise independently.
Excludes patient disclosure, consent or duty-of-candour concerns that do not concern clinician credentialing or competence verification.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Department of Health and Social Care2
Care Quality Commission1
Goring Hall Hospital1
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board1
Sussex Medical Chambers Limited1
Ministerial department2
Health and social care service regulator1
Healthcare site1
Independent healthcare provider1
Integrated care board1
Reports and published responses 2 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
West Sussex, Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Lack of robust assessment and guidelines for independent private-sector practising privileges
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Circle Health Group
Department of Health and Social Care
Goring Hall Hospital
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board
Sussex Medical Chambers
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
Apply a Practising Privileges policy requiring evidence of clinicians’ qualifications, experience, competencies and procedural activity before independent practice.
Department of Health and Social Care
Complete clear, patient-focused guidance explaining NHS and independent-sector care, private-hospital consultant arrangements, emergency provision, handovers and questions for providers.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
Existing practising-privileges requirements and governance arrangements sufficiently assess clinicians’ qualifications, experience and competence for independent practice.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Circle Health Group and Goring Hall Hospital
CHG considers no additions or changes to its current practising-privileges and transparency processes necessary.
No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board
Goring Hall Hospital is responsible for decisions about practising privileges and admitting rights.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board
The ICB has no power over which clinicians receive practising privileges or admitting rights.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Sussex Medical Chambers
Goring Hall Hospital is responsible for explaining practising-privileges processes and addressing the duty-of-candour concern.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
Failure to use robust processes for signing off locum consultants as competent for independent practice
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.