Outcome: Caution
Conduct and Competence Committee
Region: Northern Ireland
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Notice Of Allegation:
1. At all material times, you were employed by the Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust as a podiatrist.
2. In the course of that employment, you went on sick leave from 19th April 2006 until 26th May 2006.
3. Whilst on sick leave you carried out private podiatry work.
4. Carrying out private practise whilst on sick leave was contrary to policy 3 (iii) of the Trust’s Sickness and Absenteeism Policy and Procedure.
5. Also during the course of your employment with the Trust, you saw private patients during your lunch break.
In doing so you:
a. did not comply with Trust policy regarding private practice; and
b. disobeyed direct instructions not to undertake private work during your lunch break.
Committees Finding:
When this case was opened to us, it was conceded by Mr Hannah on behalf of the registrant that the allegations were admitted by his client. Not withstanding these admissions the Panel required Ms Sophie Kemp, Counsel on behalf of the HPC to prove her case in the normal way. She requested the Panel to adopt a 3 stage approach to the allegations. Firstly to decide if the facts were proven, if so, whether those facts constituted misconduct and if so, whether the registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.
For the avoidance of doubt the Panel wish to state that the burden of proof is on the HPC to prove its case to the requisite standard, namely, on the balance of probabilities.
Having carefully considered the oral evidence of Mrs Denise Christine Russell, (who we found a credible and reliable witness) and whose evidence was largely not challenged in cross examination, the HPC bundle of documents and the respective submissions of the parties this Panel is satisfied, to the requisite standard that the facts of the allegation set out at pages 3 and 4 of the HPC’s bundle of documents.
The oral and written evidence establish that between the 19 April 2006 and 26 May 2006, the registrant, whilst on sick leave from Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust, carried out private podiatry work and did so, contrary to policy 3(iii) of the Trust’s Sickness and Absenteeism Policy and Procedure. The oral and written evidence also establish that during the course of his employment with the afore mentioned Trust, the registrant saw private patients during his lunch break and in so doing, did not comply with the Trust policy regarding private practice. He also disobeyed direct instructions not to undertake private work during his lunch break.
The matter giving rise to the HPC allegation came to light on the 3 May 2006, after which two appointments were arranged, one for Mrs Rita Trainor for the 12 May 2006, which she attended with the registrant and one for Honor McCall for the 24 May 2006 which was subsequently cancelled. The matter then resulted in a Trust investigation and the registrant was interviewed on the 26 May 2006, accompanied by his representative. On that date the registrant freely admitted treating a number of private patients mainly in his Portadown practise and once, in his Tandragee practise between the 19 April 2006 and the 26 May 2006 (during which that period, he was on sick leave from the Trust). We note that the registrant, on the 26 May 2006, accepted that he had breached the above mentioned policy and indeed, enquired whether it would be possible to pay back the sick pay he had received. Another meeting took place with the registrant on the 6 July 2006 when he acknowledged that he’d read all the relevant documentation relating to carrying out work on a private capacity.
We find from the evidence, oral and written, and the registrant’s own admissions made during the course of the interview that he carried out private work whilst on sick leave from the Trust and that he treated private patients during his lunch break, contrary to Trust policy. We find that at all material times, the registrant was familiar with the relevant Trust policies.
Having found the facts proven the Panel consider the next step, namely, whether those facts mount to misconduct. We find that they do mount to misconduct. In so acting, he was in breach, not only of the relevant Trust policies, but also standards 3, 13 & 14 of the Health Professions Council’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. These provide as follows; You must keep high standards of personal conduct, you must carry out your duties in a professional and ethical way and you must behave with integrity and honesty.
Finally, the Panel considered whether the registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct set out as above. We find that it is. The breaches of the HPC standards impact on the registrant’s current integrity.
Committees Direction:
Sanction:
In approaching the question of which sanction, if any, is appropriate in this case the Panel had regard to the HPC Indicative Sanctions document, the principle of proportionality and the respective submissions of the parties. The Panel reminds itself that the purpose of sanctions is to secure public protection rather than to punish.
The Panel has considered the comprehensive points made in mitigation made by Mr Hannah on behalf of the registrant and has had regard to the new guidelines for Podiatry Service issued on May 2008. Having carefully considered the detailed points in mitigation and all the evidence, this Panel is satisfied that there is no real risk of reoccurrence that the registrant has shown insight and the lapse itself was of a minor nature, and that it was over a short period of time. The Panel has also had regard to the lengthy and distinguished work history of this registrant who qualified in 1984.
The Panel has considered each of the sanctions available to it and has decided, given the seriousness of the case; to take no further action would not be appropriate. The Panel has decided to make a Caution Order. It is satisfied that this will adequately protect the public and is a proportionate sanction in the circumstances.
The Panel next considered the duration of the set caution. The Panel has decided that the Caution Order shall remain in place for a period of two years.
Order:
That the Registrar be directed to annotate the register entry of xxxxxxxxx with a Caution which is to remain on the register for a period of two years.
Click to expand...