Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


How do you feel about the lords rejecting compulsory registration for HCAs?


It’s got everyone tweeting. We discover what people think of the Lord’s rejection of HCA registration



Readers' comments (5)

  • compulsory national minimum standards for hca training, policed by the cqc would be a good thing. crb checks to keep known abusers at bay, great. nurses delegating to and managing their staff, fine. what, apart from bureaucracy, nepotism and buck passing, would registration bring to the table? something like the nmc and it's code of conduct? accusations of racism and bullying, hca's struck off for whistleblowing? it would at least keep the twittersphere busy!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • House of Lords? C'est nul!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Seems to me that this is generating more heat than light!!

    If it be accepted (and surely it IS accepted on all hands) that HCAs are an integral part of healthcare giving, doesn't it stand to reason that they need to be trained AND regulated - just as nurses, doctors and all other healthcare professionals have to be. What the House of Lords appears to have overlooked (turned a blind eye to?) is that the cost of training and registering HCAs is going to make economic sense in the (short to) medium term as standards improve, there are fewer adverse events attributable to them and the scope of their work enables them to do more advanced work at a cost below that generated when nurses do such tasks. This would also (hopefully) give them more job satisfaction.

    The HCAs whom I have encountered are highly competent within their spheres of activity and (although I haven't done any research along these lines) I would think it likely that they would not just benefit from but value the enhancement in status that extended training and registration would afford them.

    Why don't their Lordships spend time on the wards to get a reality check on the real healthcaring world? I know why they don't - and I'm sure you do, too!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Francis Seelig | 29-Dec-2011 10:47 pm

    nice post. if the "doesn't it stand to reason" is rhetorical could you please expand on your argument? if it is a direct question then the answer is "no, it doesn't."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The main question is about risk vs. benefit for the perceived benefits of protection through regulation. Who would pay for regulation? Would HCSWs simply leave the role if they had to pay £80-ish per annum like registered nurses do? Add to that the POVG scheme membership and the job becomes unaffordable to employees!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs