Publication candidate — pending trustee adoption. This document is a complete operating proposal, not yet effective policy. It takes effect only when adopted by recorded resolution of the MSK REGEN trustees. It is not legal advice, regulatory accreditation, or a substitute for local clinical, research, employment or institutional governance.
Scope and access
The procedure covers conduct, membership administration, programme appointments, events, online content, conflicts, scientific integrity, Centre decisions and service quality. Editorial complaints after submission to ORTST follow ORTST’s policies, and clinical complaints about care remain with the treating provider and regulator.
A complaint may be sent to [email protected] or another published protected route and should identify the issue, relevant dates, people, evidence and desired outcome; anonymous reports are considered where sufficient information exists. Immediate danger, safeguarding, crime, data breach or patient-safety risk is triaged at once and may be referred outside this procedure without waiting for an internal outcome.
Service standards
Published targets govern each stage; extensions are explained and updates provided:
- Acknowledgement: within 5 working days (data-protection complaints no later than the statutory requirement).
- Conflict, scope and urgency triage: within 5 working days; immediate for a credible safety or safeguarding risk.
- Investigator appointed and issues defined: normally within 10 working days.
- Outcome: normally within 30 working days; any extension is explained, with updates at least every 20 working days.
- Review request: within 20 working days of the outcome.
- Review outcome: normally within 30 working days after the review is accepted.
Fair process
Every complaint is handled through a consistent, evidenced, auditable process:
- triage the issue, jurisdiction, immediate risk, conflicts, confidentiality and possible external reporting;
- appoint an investigator who is sufficiently independent, competent and unconflicted;
- state the allegations or issues clearly and give the affected person a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless a lawful safeguarding or evidence-preservation reason requires staged disclosure;
- gather proportionate evidence, keep an audit trail, and distinguish established facts, disputed facts and opinion;
- apply the civil standard (balance of probabilities) for internal findings, recognising that regulators or criminal authorities use their own standards;
- issue a reasoned written outcome stating findings, action, publication/correction implications, confidentiality, the review route and any external referral.
Interim measures and sanction principles
Interim protective measures are not findings or punishment; they may include access restriction, recusal, case or Centre suspension, removal from an event or temporary status restriction, and must be reviewed regularly.
Sanction is decided against a consistent set of factors: seriousness, intent, recklessness and foreseeable harm; patient, participant, scientific, charitable, financial, regulatory and reputational risk; pattern, prior warning, seniority, abuse of power and concealment; cooperation, insight, correction, mitigation and proportionality; and consistency with comparable decisions and the need to protect the public and the scientific record.
Review and appeal
A review is available for material procedural unfairness, relevant new evidence not reasonably available earlier, a conflict in the original decision-maker, a material error or a disproportionate outcome — mere disagreement is insufficient.
The review is decided by an unconflicted person or panel not involved in the original decision and may confirm, vary, revoke or remit the decision; the review decision is final internally, without limiting statutory or regulatory rights.
- Charity Commission — Making decisions at a charity
- Charity Commission — Reporting a serious incident
- COPE — Core Practices