24/7 Support - 021 556 3990

News and Updates


Many recruitment agencies have suffered the grave consequences of not properly vetting their health practitioners. This article aims to highlight a few aftereffects of improper staff screening and by providing a recommendation on how to avoid these repercussions.

5 grave consequences of not properly vetting health practitioners

The grave consequences of not properly vetting health practitioners are varied and intrinsically linked. Here are a few of the more prominent negative results:

  • A damaged reputation is tough to salvage. This is especially true in the medical industry where a mistake that risks people’s lives won’t be quickly forgotten; and can affect the recruiter long after the matter is considered resolved.
  • Unvetted health practitioners are extremely costly. Once word gets out that a recruitment agency has made the mistake of not properly vetting their candidates; the agency will most likely lose business from their current clients and hinder many future dealings.
  • There are also legal implications to hiring staff that haven’t been sufficiently vetted. Negligent hiring forces the recruitment agency to take full responsibility for any incident caused by the health practitioner in question. Additionally, these legalities might result in a court case that could take years to resolve.
  • Not only will the hiring of unvetted personnel be harmful to the recruitment agency, but the risk of harming patients is alarmingly high. Identity fraud, robbery, and sexual and physical assault are just a few of the consequences that patients might face when placing their lives in the hands of someone untrustworthy.
  • It isn’t just the patients at the medical facilities that will be at risk, but the staff too. The unsafe practices of improperly vetted staff can damage the lives, privacy and reputation of other medical professionals in their association.

Recommended approach

Inappropriate candidates will continue to be selected for jobs through recruitment agencies unless vigorous vetting structures are put in place. There are three core tenets that make this method is the safest approach:

  1. The ideal candidate is defined by the business objectives of the job.
  2. The process and rubric of assessing the candidates is deliberate and premeditated.
  3. The hiring decisions are based on the data and evidence available.

Another option is to hand over the vetting process to a trusted third-party company who will be responsible for screening the candidates on the behalf of the recruiter. At the end of the day though, there is no alternative to or excuse for not properly vetting medical candidates without the result of dire and inescapable consequences.