Remediation after a probity or dishonesty concern

Clinical concerns usually come from a gap in knowledge or skill, and gaps can be closed with training and supervised practice. Probity concerns go to character and attitude. A panel cannot watch you be honest in the way a supervisor can watch you take blood or write a prescription. That is why the regulators treat dishonesty as one of the more serious categories of concern.

• GMC and MPTS. Remediation means addressing the knowledge, skills, conduct or behaviour behind the concern, and some failings are more difficult to remediate than others. Dishonesty, particularly where it is persistent or covered up, is treated as serious. Tribunals have used the Guidance for MPTS tribunals since 24 November 2025, so check its current wording with your representative.
• NMC. The NMC's fitness to practise library asks first whether a concern can be addressed (FTP-16a) and then whether it has been addressed (FTP-16b). Its guidance recognises that concerns about attitude, such as dishonesty, can be harder to put right than clinical failings.
• Social Work England. Its impairment and sanctions guidance says character concerns such as dishonesty are harder to remediate, that remediation is best shown through objective evidence, and that earlier remediation tends to carry more weight.

None of this means a dishonesty finding automatically ends a career. Panels look at the nature of the dishonesty, how long it lasted, whether patients or public funds were affected, how you responded once it came to light, and what you have done since. Insight and remediation still matter. They simply have to be deeper and better evidenced than for a clinical error.

In Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 the Supreme Court set out the test for dishonesty that UK courts and fitness to practise panels now apply. It has two stages.

1. What did you actually know or believe? The panel first works out your genuine state of knowledge or belief about the facts at the time. Whether that belief was reasonable is relevant to whether you really held it, but it does not have to be reasonable.
2. Was your conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? Given what you knew or believed, the panel then asks whether ordinary decent people would regard your conduct as dishonest. It does not matter whether you yourself thought it was dishonest.

Understanding this test helps with remediation in a practical way. Reflection that says "I did not think I was being dishonest" misses the point of stage two. Strong reflection shows that you now understand how your actions look to patients, colleagues and the public, and why the profession relies on every registrant meeting that standard. The Probity for Healthcare Professionals course covers the legal, ethical and professional dimensions of probity and how regulators assess a breach.

Not every course will carry the same weight in your case. Start with the one closest to what happened, then build outwards.

Timesheets, expenses, fees or funds

Begin with Financial Integrity. It works through overbilling for hours not worked, falsified expense claims, misuse of patient funds and incentives from suppliers, and it explains where honest error ends and dishonesty begins. Then add Probity and Rebuilding Trust.

Records written or changed after the event

Begin with Professionalism in Documentation, which covers how to correct an entry or add a late entry properly and why altering a record can turn a clinical concern into a probity concern. Add Probity and the Module on Insight.

CVs, applications, references and declarations

Begin with Probity, which has a dedicated lesson on managing declarations and disclosures, then Rebuilding Trust. Documentation's lesson on probity in forms and non-clinical documents is also directly relevant.

Research, audit or academic work

Probity covers academic honesty and research conduct. Pair it with Insight and Reflection so your written work shows you understand the wider effect on patients and on trust in evidence.

Conduct outside work, including some criminal matters

Courses can support your learning, but these cases depend heavily on the facts and on legal advice. Use the pack alongside, not instead of, advice from your defence organisation or solicitor.

Reflection on a probity concern is the hardest kind to write. Some common traps:

• Minimising. Words such as "oversight" or "misunderstanding" for something the facts show was deliberate can suggest a lack of insight.
• Blaming circumstances. Pressure, workload or personal difficulties may explain the context, and it is fine to describe them, but the reflection should still own the decision you made.
• Focusing only on yourself. Panels want to see you understand the harm to patients, colleagues, the employer and the reputation of the profession, not only the impact on your career.
• Generic text. Template phrases or AI-written statements are easy to spot and work against you.
• Contradicting your legal position. If you dispute some or all of the facts, discuss with your representative how to reflect on the issues without conceding things you do not accept.

The Module on Reflection includes worked examples of weak and strong reflections, and the Module on Insight explains how regulators assess insight. Both are part of the pack for that reason.

Being accused of dishonesty can feel like an attack on who you are, not just on something you did. Shame, anger and fear are common and can make it harder to think clearly or to engage with the process. Many professionals find it helps to talk to someone outside the case. Your defence organisation or union may offer support, and NHS Practitioner Health provides confidential help for eligible practitioners. If you are in crisis, contact your GP, NHS 111 or the Samaritans on 116 123.