Remediation
In professional disciplinary proceedings, the process by which a practitioner demonstrates insight into proven misconduct and takes steps to address it, relevant to current impairment and sanction.
Independent editorial summary — not the official statute text. Read the official version on legislation.gov.uk.
The leading modern discussion is Silber J's three-part test in R (Cohen) v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 1595 (Admin), applied and quoted at length by the High Court in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at [68]: 'It must be highly relevant in determining if a doctor's fitness to practise is impaired that first his or her conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable, second that it has been remedied and third that it is highly unlikely to be repeated.' Remediation is therefore not simply remorse; it requires an evidenced, practical change of practice or behaviour going to whether the risk underlying the original finding has actually been addressed.
Remediation's weight varies with the nature of the misconduct. Grant records the distinction, drawn in Yeong v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 1923 (Admin), between clinical failings (where remediation carries real weight) and violations of fundamental professional rules (where it carries much less). As the Court put it at [104]: 'the more serious the misconduct found the more difficult it should be, in general, to justify a finding that fitness to practise is not impaired' - meaning that for the most serious misconduct, evidence of remediation may still not suffice to avoid a finding of current impairment, since public confidence and professional standards can outweigh an individual's demonstrated rehabilitation.
Example
A nurse found to have falsified patient records may show remediation by completing further training, demonstrating changed practice over a sustained period, and providing independent evidence of insight into why the conduct was wrong - factors a disciplinary panel must weigh against the seriousness of the original misconduct in deciding whether fitness to practise remains impaired.
Related terms
Official sources
This explanation is drawn from the official sources below; every substantive statement is verified against them. For advice on a specific matter, see our find help page.