Lyra Heard

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Registrant was served with a Notice of Hearing setting out the day, time and virtual nature of the hearing and evidence of this was seen by the Panel. The Panel was satisfied that email communication is an appropriate method of communication, and that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, which the Registrant herself has used to correspond with the Council in this matter. Accordingly, the Panel has determined that there is good service of the Notice of Hearing.

Proceeding in Absence

2. The HCPC applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, on the basis that this is in the interests of all parties and is in the interests of justice. It was submitted that no detriment would result to the Registrant who has made her position clear and is pursuing Voluntary Removal. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. Whilst the Panel is aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant is one to be taken with great care and caution, the Panel has decided to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules.

4. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to the following matters:
• Service of the appropriate Notice of this hearing has been properly effected;
• The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment or sought to object to this hearing proceeding in her absence;
• In the service bundle, there is an email from her representative James Wilkinson, on 8 February 2024 which confirms that there would be no attendance by the Registrant if matters proceed as anticipated, “we would not attend”;
• There is evidence that the Registrant was fully aware of this hearing and had made an informed decision not to attend;
• The Registrant has engaged with the HCPC in relation to this matter and this is a hearing of the Registrant’s own application for Voluntary Removal from the Register and has provided an electronic signature the requisite form;
• The HCPC considers the Registrant’s Voluntary Removal from the Register a suitable disposal of this case;
• There would be no prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant if the hearing proceeds today;
• There is a public interest with the matter proceeding expeditiously.

Hearing in Private

5. The Panel noted that this case references a health matter, and accordingly including the private life of the Registrant. The Panel considered whether the hearing should be held in private. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s health was a private matter and accordingly the entirety of the hearing should be held in private. As such, this is a redacted version of the Panel’s full decision.

Background

6. On 28 September 2021, Colleague A, Clinical Lead and the Registrant’s line manager, and Colleague B, a former Consultant Occupational Therapist (“OT”) and Professional Lead, submitted a referral to the HCPC regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

7. The Registrant was employed as an OT at Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust, from 15 August 1995 to 30 September 2021.

8. She started working in the Learning Disability Service in 1995 as a Band 7 OT but then moved to a Band 6 OT on 7 May 2018, due to concerns about her health and how this was impacting her ability to practise safely.

9. Her employment ended on 30 September 2021 on the grounds of ill- health capability.

10. The Registrant has been granted ill-health early retirement.

11. Colleague A describes in their statement how, over a five year period from around 2016 to 2021, a significant number of reasonable adjustments were implemented to support the Registrant’s practice. Despite this, Colleague A states that, in September 2021, there were significant concerns about her ability to practise safely and effectively due to her ill health and she was not able to perform her role as an OT to the required standard.

12. On 28 July 2022, a Panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer in respect of the allegation set out above and referred the matter to the Health Committee.

13. The referral form, dated 28 September 2021, sets out a chronology of the concerns relating to the Registrant’s practice as an OT. The concerns were summarised as relating to poor documentation, poor clinical reasoning, and poor time management and organisation.

14. The concerns included what was described as a “near miss” incident. This occurred on 14 January 2021, whereby the Registrant sent an email recommending that a patient purchase a bath lift, despite advice from the Clinical Lead that more information was needed and that the Registrant was not to make recommendations until a home visit took place.

15. [Redacted].

16. [Redacted].

17. [Redacted].

18. [Redacted].

19. On 16 September 2021, the Registrant sent a letter confirming her intention to retire from the Trust on the grounds of ill health.

Voluntary Removal

20. The Registrant has indicated that she wishes to be voluntarily removed from the Register and HCPC submits that this is a suitable disposal of the case. Both public protection and the public interest are served by a Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”), as this removes the ability of the Registrant to practise. The Registrant, who has admitted the Allegation, has confirmed that she understands that the VRA will be akin to being struck-off and explained that her health conditions do not let her perform an OT role effectively.

Decision

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and the guidance provided by the HCPTS Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. It evaluated whether disposal of this case by consent can provide a fairer method of concluding a case, which reduces the time taken to deal with allegations, while meeting HCPC’s overarching statutory objective: the protection of the public.

22. The Panel were mindful that it should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that:
• The appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and
• Doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

23. The Practice Note also highlights that a Panel may reject the proposed consensual disposal and set the case down for a full substantive hearing and accordingly, before considering the proposal, the Panel considered whether the HCPC:
• Has provided a clear, appropriately detailed and objectively justified explanation within its supporting skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent on the terms set out; and
• Has made clear to the Registrant concerned that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to the Voluntary Removal being approved.

24. The Panel considered all the material it has before it, including the HCPC skeleton argument, the Registrant’s correspondence and the evidence of her ill health and reflection. It also has regard to consensual disposal request pro-forma dated 10 October 2023, wherein the Registrant confirms she has read the HCPTS Practice Note.

25. Insofar as an appropriate level of public protection is concerned, the Panel noted that the Registrant has admitted both the substance of the allegation and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her health, as set out within the consensual disposal request pro-forma, signed by the Registrant on 10 October 2023. Further, that there was evidence of the Registrant’s poor health. The Panel recognised that a VRA would conclude this matter on an expedited basis, allowing the Registrant to resign from the Register, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the Registrant had been struck off. If this matter proceeded to a substantive hearing, the probable outcome would be the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order or Suspension Order, meaning that any routes prevented the Registrant from practising without restriction. Given that the Registrant’s employer had attempted to implement conditions to assist with her employment unsuccessfully, the suspension outcome would be the more likely. The VRA route is more speedy in preventing practice and given that the Registrant’s health is poor, would prevent her further distress. [Redacted].

26. The Panel noted that the Notice of Withdrawal confirms that, if the Registrant at any time seeks to be readmitted to the HCPC Register, in considering any such application the HCPC shall act as if the Registrant had been struck off the register as a result of the Allegation and that the Registrant has confirmed within the consensual disposal request pro-forma dated 10 October 2023 that she understands that a VRA is equivalent to strike-off. Accordingly, a VRA will mean that the Registrant is no longer be able to practise as an OT, nor use any title associated with that profession. As a result, adequate public protection will be achieved.

27. Insofar as not being detrimental to the wider public interest, whilst an allegation that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of health is a serious allegation, the case is not so serious that it cannot be dealt with on an expedited basis by way of VRA. There is no evidence that the Registrant’s impaired fitness to practise resulted in harm to patients nor are there any particular features of the case that would necessitate it being dealt with at a substantive hearing.

28. The Panel were of the view that granting the application would be consistent with the wider public interest. A reasonably informed member of the public would be satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate for the HCPC to withdraw proceedings on the basis the Registrant resigns from the register.

29. The Panel determined that it would not be in the public interest for this case to proceed to a substantive hearing, as this would cause unnecessary distress to the Registrant, and would result in the case being listed for a number of days to hear evidence, including from a suitably qualified expert. Given the Registrant’s admissions and her desire to no longer practise as an OT, the Panel was of the view that this would be disproportionate and unnecessary, given the poor health of the Registrant.

30. For the reasons set out above, the Panel grants the application to allow the HCPC to withdraw proceedings against the Registrant, pursuant to the VRA between the Registrant and the HCPC in the terms set out in the attached Notice of Withdrawal.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Lyra Heard from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Lyra Heard