International route application outcomes by EDI characteristics

Our commitment to being a fair and inclusive regulator goes beyond complying with the requirements of equality and human rights legislation (including our public sector equality duties). It starts with understanding and evidencing the EDI profile of our registrants, partners and employees. Data helps us to identify any patterns or trends and helps us to shine a light on any issues, and to take action where necessary, all informed by a strong evidence base. 

One of the ways in which we do this is by monitoring the EDI characteristics of the people applying to join our Register through the international route to check for any signs of disproportionality in registration outcomes. Although disproportionality alone is not evidence of unfairness, it is important that, as the regulator, we understand the patterns that we see so that we can be assured the decisions we take are delivering fair outcomes. 

As part of this work, we analysed all international route applications created between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2024, where a registration decision has been made (a total of 22,551 applications). We assessed all nine protected characteristics, along with subcontinent of nationality and profession.

Results

Out of 22,551 applications included in the analysis, seven of the nine protected characteristics showed an effect when each was looked at on its own. However, when all factors were analysed together, only a few characteristics remained linked to differences in acceptance rates.

The analysis showed lower acceptance rates for some groups (for example, applicants aged between 35-39 and between 50-54, and for those who identified as bisexual) and higher acceptance rates in some groups (for example, applicants who reported having no religion or belief). 

This is the first time we have conducted this analysis, and the initial findings do not indicate any unfairness in our international assessment process. It is important to note that disproportionality, on its own, does not indicate unfairness. A difference in outcomes can arise for a wide range of legitimate reasons and can just as easily be a sign of a system operating as intended. We will be undertaking further work to understand if these differences persist in future data sets. 

When looking at subcontinent and profession, both showed effects on their own and when analysed together, seven professions and one subcontinent were linked with lower acceptance rates, while five subcontinents were linked with higher acceptance rates (please see table below for more information). We suspect that these differences may reflect differences in the approach to education and training of our varied professions in different territories and the comparability of the health and care systems in which they have worked prior to applying to join the HCPC Register.

Applicant characteristics with statistically significant associations with acceptance

Next steps

We have planned further analysis later this year to incorporate data from 2025/26, as well as additional registrant characteristics. This work is intended to help us understand whether any observed differences persist over time or simply reflect expected variation. 

This second stage of analysis will provide us with a clearer understanding of whether there is any consistent disproportionality in the outcomes of applications via the international route. 

Related content