Defining fitness to practise in Australian radiation therapy: A focus group study

Abstract

Purpose This paper presents the results of a study undertaken to investigate how Australian radiation therapists define fitness to practise. Method: A qualitative approach was taken to data collection with focus groups being employed to gather the data. Analysis was informed by grounded theory. Following ethics approval, three homogeneous focus groups were conducted comprising a total of 21 participants, with 5–8 participants per group. The discussions were transcribed, verified by the researcher and participants, then unitised, coded and a sample checked by a second coder. Findings: There was no consensus on the definition of fitness to practise. The terms professionalism and competence were used interchangeably in some definitions. Four themes emerged from the data, these were; fitness as a continuum (individual differences and longevity in the profession), fitness as behaviour and conduct (professionalism and competence), fitness as a state of mind (attitudes and intangible elements) and fitness as being qualified (course completion means fitness to practise). Three concepts which were not raised were illegal behaviour, impaired practice and dose errors. Conclusion There is no consensus among radiation therapists about fitness to practise. There was confusion with how Fitness to practise relates to professionalism and competence with little mention of how impairment is interwoven into the notion of fitness to practise. Without an unambiguous definition and robust criteria, making the ‘judgement call’ as to whether a practitioners’ fitness to practise is impaired will continue to be a challenge for educators, departmental managers and registration boards.