Mr Matthew Lee Taylor
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA35604) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence. In that
1. Between 2 November 2019 and 3 November 2019, in relation to Service User A, you:
a) Did not obtain and/or record an adequate clinical history
b) Did not undertake an adequate physical assessment
c) Recorded that you had undertaken a physical assessment of Service User A when this was not the case
d) Demonstrated poor clinical reasoning in that you incorrectly diagnosed Service User A with a urinary tract infection when she was suffering from septic miscarriage
e) Supplied Service User A with Nitrofurantoin 100mg, twice daily for 7 days when this was not in accordance with the Patient Group Directive (PGD) which specifies a 3-day course.
2. Between 2 November 2019 and 3 November 2019, you did not communicate professionally during a consultation with Service User A, in the presence of
Person A, in that:
a) You said to Service User A: “do you know what happens when you have unprotected sex” or words to that effect;
b) You said to Person A: have you thought of having “the f*****g snip” or words to that effect;
c) In relation to b), you said to Person A: that your wife and friends “f*****g love it” or words to that effect;
d) You said to Service User A: “It won’t help wearing a bin bag coat” or words to that effect.
3. On or around 5 January 2020, in relation to Service User C, you:
a) Supplied a five day course of Ciprofloxacin to Service User C when this was not clinically indicated and/or was not in accordance with the PGDs
b) Did not supply a three day course of Nitrofurantoin in response to Service User C’s clinical presentation and/or as permitted by the PGDs
4. On or around 11 January 2020 you demonstrated poor clinical reasoning in that you incorrectly diagnosed Service User B with a urinary tract infection when they were suffering from a bowel obstruction.
5. On or around 11 January 2020, in relation to Service User D, you
a) Did not record and/or investigate a possible urinary tract infection via urinary analysis
b) Did not maintain adequate records in that you did not record the dosage and/or duration of the medication supplied
c) Did not follow the Trimethoprim PGD in that you did not ensure and/or record that Service User D met the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria for administration
6. On 11 January 2020 you did not refer Service User E to the local early pregnancy advisor services following a presentation of vaginal bleeding at seven weeks pregnant.
7. On or around 11 January 2020, in relation to Service User E, you:
a) Did not follow the PGD for Nitrofurantoin in that you did not ensure and/or record that Service User E met the exclusion and/or inclusion criteria for administration
b) Prescribed Nitrofurantoin to a pregnant patient when the PGD stated this as an exclusion criteria
c) Did not record the dosage and/or duration of the course of medication
8. In relation to the matters set out at paragraph 1e), 3a) and 7b) you acted outside of your scope of practice.
9. The matters set out in paragraph 2 above constitute misconduct.
10.The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and/or 3 and/or and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 and/or 7 and/or 8 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
11.By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired
Finding
The panel at the Substantive Hearing found the following:
Facts proved: 1e); 2a); 2b); 2d; 3a); 3b); 5a) to 5c); 6; 7a) to 7c); and 8
Facts not proved: 1a); 1b); 1c); 1d); 2c) and 4
Grounds: Misconduct (not 2a) and 2 d))
The panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired and a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months was imposed as a sanction.
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Hearings Officer referred the Panel to the Notice of Hearing sent on the 11 April 2024 to the Registrant’s registered email address. That email set out that the hearing was to be held on the 30 April 2024 via Microsoft Teams. That email was delivered on 11 April 2024.
2. On 16 April 2024, a further Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address which explained that a Panel was unable to be sourced for the hearing on 30 April 2024 and the review hearing would now take place on 29 April 2024. That email was delivered on the 16 April 2024.
3. That Notice stated as follows,
“You do not have to attend the hearing, but it is generally in your best interests to do so. The panel may reach a decision which has serious consequences for you including restricting or removing your right to practice your profession.
If you do not attend, the panel may proceed with the hearing in your absence if it considers that we have served you with proper notice of the hearing.”
4. The Registrant was asked to confirm by 19 April 2024 whether he was attending the hearing. On Monday 24 April 2024, the Hearings Officer sent an introductory email setting out that the hearing would be taking place. That email also asked the Registrant to advise whether he would be present, whether he required a test call and if he had received the HCPC’s bundle. Additionally, on 26 April 2024, the Hearings Officer sent the Registrant at his registered email address the link to join the virtual hearing on 29 April 2024. The Hearings Officer told the Panel that there had been no response to any of these emails.
5. On the morning of the hearing, the Hearings Officer contacted the Registrant via telephone. He stated that he had received the emails regarding the substantive review, but he had “nothing to say” to the HCPC. When he was asked whether he would be attending the hearing he stated, “No, I will not make the HCPC’s life any easier” or words to that effect.
6. The Hearings Officer submitted on behalf of the HCPC that there had been good service. Mr East acknowledged that there had not been strict compliance with the rules that require 28 days’ notice, but he submitted to the Panel that this caused no prejudice to the Registrant and the hearing should proceed.
7. Mr East told the Panel that the HCPC had first notified the Registrant of the intention to review the Suspension Order on 1 March 2024. At a hearing on 4 April 2024, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee declined to review the Order on the basis that the Registrant had not been sent the details within the Notice of Hearing to join the hearing in breach of Rule 10 (b) (2) of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003.
8. That panel, on 4 April 2024, considered that it would be unfair to proceed on the basis that the Registrant may have changed his mind and attended the hearing but was unable to do so. It also considered that there was sufficient time before the Order expired to re-schedule the hearing in compliance with the rules. Mr East submitted that on that occasion there had not been strict compliance with the 28-day notice requirement and that Panel had considered that there was no prejudice to the Registrant on the basis of one or two days less.
9. Mr East referred the Panel to the case of Dorairaj v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2762 and submitted that in this case there was no unfairness to the Registrant in proceeding as he was aware that the hearing was taking place and had been aware that a review was upcoming since 1 March 2024. Mr East submitted that the Registrant had indicated an intention not to attend and as the Order was due to expire on 2 May 2024 it was in the public interest to continue with the review today. Mr East submitted in the alternative, that if the Panel were not content that there had been good service then it should extend the current Suspension Order for a short period to allow the matter to be re-listed with the appropriate notice period.
10. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor which it has accepted. She referred the Panel to Article 30 (9) of the Health Professions Order 2001 which sets out that a Registrant must be given an opportunity to appear before it and to argue his case in accordance with rules made by the Council…” The Legal Assessor advised that the applicable rules are the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003. (the Rules).
11. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to Rule 13 which requires that where a notice of hearing is given for a review hearing it should set out the date, time and location of the hearing and be served on them at their registered address at least 28 days in advance of the hearing.
12. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing for today was provided on 16 April 2024 some 12 days in advance of the hearing. The Panel took account of the case of Dorairaj v Bar Standards Board and considered whether this procedural breach was sufficient to give rise to a prejudice such that it would not be fair to proceed.
13. The Panel considered the history of the matter and the lack of engagement by the Registrant to date. The Panel also considered the Registrant’s response given on the morning of the hearing that he had nothing to say and that he was “not going to make the HCPC’s life any easier.” The Panel considered that this was ambiguous and did not convey that the Registrant was content with the shortened notice period and was happy for the hearing to proceed in his absence.
14. The Panel considered that the Rules provided the framework by which it could be satisfied that the Registrant had been given an opportunity to appear before it. The Panel considered that the service of the notice of hearing had been confusing, and that the Registrant had effectively had less than half of the notice period required by the Rules. It balanced that with the fact that the Registrant had known about the upcoming review since 1 March 2024 and had taken no proactive steps to engage with the proceedings despite indicating that he had received the emails.
15. The Panel considered the significant consequences for the Registrant of proceeding with the review hearing today in the light of this non-engagement. It noted that these consequences had been pointed out in the various notices that had been sent to the Registrant, together with information about providing written submissions.
16. However, the Panel was of the view that the failure to comply with the provision of a sufficient notice period as required by the Rules left open the possibility that the Registrant had not been given sufficient time to consider his position fully. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant had been given confusing information regarding the date for the hearing and the 28 days required by the Rules had been significantly shortened. In the absence of explicit consent that the Registrant was content with this process the Panel considered that there was a potential for unfairness and the Registrant may have been unable to reflect fully before the hearing.
17. The Panel was also aware that the Order would lapse upon expiry on 2 May 2024. In these circumstances, it balanced the need to protect the public with fairness to the Registrant. It considered that the appropriate way forward was to extend the current Suspension Order for a further period of 2 months upon expiry. The Order can then be fully reviewed by a Panel with the Registrant having been given the appropriate notice as required by the Rules. Should the Registrant choose not to participate in that hearing, then the Reviewing Panel can take that into account.
Order
ORDER:
The Registrar is directed to extend the Suspension Order for a period of 2 months.
The Order imposed today will apply from 2 May 2024.
Notes
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 2 July 2024.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Matthew Lee Taylor
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29/04/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
| 04/04/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Adjourned |
| 03/07/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |
| 18/04/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |