Heather Potter

Background
1. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist (OT). On 8 September 2021, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant in which she stated that she had resigned from (REDACTED) in relation to “[e]mployment in 2 councils”.

2. A referral was subsequently submitted to the HCPC, dated 20 September 2021, by (REDACTED) (“Glasgow”). The Registrant was employed to work full time hours (35 hours week week) at Glasgow from 17 February 2020 until her resignation on 8 September 2021. On 6 September 2021, a colleague of the Registrant’s who also worked at Glasgow, saw photographs of the Registrant with colleagues at (REDACTED) Council. When that colleague spoke to the Registrant about the photographs, the Registrant admitted she had been working as a locum with (REDACTED) Council but said she was working 2 days a week, and suggested she would take some time to decide what to do. During the course of her full-time employment with Glasgow, the Registrant also worked as a Locum 3 or 4 days per week between 3 February 2021 and 5 March 2021 at NHS Forth and also worked 35 hours per week as a locum for (REDACTED) Council between 8 March 2021 and 7 September 2021. Some of the days worked outside of her employment with Glasgow were during periods of sickness absence (18 August 2021 – 8 September 2021) or whilst on leave due to bereavement of her dog (27 July 2021). On 8 September 2021, after a meeting with Glasgow about these concerns, the Registrant resigned with immediate effect. Glasgow therefore did not carry out an investigation.

3. The Registrant provided a consensual disposal pro forma, dated 10 July 2024, confirming that she wished the matter to be dealt with by way of a Suspension Order. She confirmed that she admits the substance of the allegations and that her fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct. Following receipt of further reflective statements in relation to the dishonesty aspect of the allegation, Capsticks confirmed to the Registrant’s representative on 29 July 2024 that the HCPC were content to agree disposal of this matter by way of an agreed Suspension Order of 3 months’ duration.

Submissions
On behalf of the HCPC
4. Mr Slack, on behalf of the HCPC, adopted the written submissions prepared by Capsticks (dated 6 February 2025).

5. The HCPC submitted that the proposed Consent Order would maintain public confidence in the profession and would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. It was further submitted that the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory investigation and admitted from the outset that she had been concurrently working two full time jobs. She also admitted that this was dishonest. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant has developed insight over time and recognises the potential impact of misconduct on the profession, colleagues, patients, and service users. It was submitted that the risk of repetition is low.

6. The HCPC acknowledged that in accordance with the Sanctions Policy dishonesty is always serious and is likely to result in a more serious sanction, but the Panel was invited to take into account that there are varying degrees of dishonesty. The Registrant’s dishonesty was repeated over a period of six months in 2021. However, the HCPC submitted that the Panel has the benefit of a fuller picture including early admissions, mitigating factors and reflection which offers reasons to be confident that the dishonesty will not be repeated. The HCPC submitted that due to the inherent seriousness of dishonesty, a final hearing panel is likely to impose nothing less than a period of suspension. As there is no evidence of patient harm, along with the extensive demonstrable insight and remediation, it is likely that a finding of impairment will be made on the public component only. For the same reasons, a shorter suspension is likely to be appropriate.

7. The HCPC further submitted that the imposition of a Suspension Order for 3 months would reassure well-informed members of the public, that the HCPC has acted in a robust yet proportionate way and addressed the concerns which were referred by the Panel of the Investigating Committee. It was submitted that a Suspension Order of longer than 3 months, or in the alternative, a Striking Order would be disproportionate and unnecessarily punitive given the facts of this case, the mitigation advanced and the Registrant’s level of insight.

On behalf of the Registrant
8. Mr Walker supported the submissions that had been made by the HCPC. He drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s self-referral and the reflective statements she has provided which set out a detailed description of the events leading up to her dishonest conduct, her feelings at the time and her analysis of what had happened and why. He referred the Panel to specific extracts and submitted that overall, the Registrant has demonstrated that she has developed a significant degree of insight.

9. Mr Walker invited the Panel to approve the Consent Order.

The Panel’s Approach
10. Prior to reaching a decision on the proposed Consent Order, the Panel carefully considered all of the information and evidence within the hearing bundle and the Registrant’s bundle including:
• the Registrant’s self-referral.
• the Registrant’s multiple reflective statements.
• Certificate of Attendance – Customer Service Awareness (14 December 2022) and Probity and Ethics (12 May 2024).
• The Registrant’s note of the learning achieved from attending the Probity and Ethics course.
• The Registrant’s remediation statement dated 15 May 2024.
• Character references from her current employers.

11. The Panel took into account the guidance contained within the HCPC Practice Note: Disposal of Cases By Consent which states that a panel should not agree to resolve a case in this way unless it is satisfied of two things: firstly, that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured and, secondly, that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

12. The Practice Note also states that:
“…any remedial action proposed by the registrant and to be embodied in the Consent Order is consistent with the expected outcome if the case was to proceed to a contested hearing.”

13. In assessing the appropriateness of the proposed Consent Order, the Panel carefully considered the balance between its duty to protect the public and the interests of the Registrant. The Panel also had regard to the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy and took into account paragraph 121 which states:

“A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

14. The Panel noted that, if it was content to do so, it could conclude the case on an expedited basis, based on the terms of the draft Consent Order. Alternatively, the Panel could reject the proposal and set the case down for a full substantive hearing.

Decision
15. The Panel was provided with a signed copy of the proposed Consent Order. The Panel noted that the Allegation has been admitted in full and based on the documentary evidence the particulars of the Allegation were capable of being found proved on the balance of probabilities.

16. The Panel noted that in the Registrant’s written insights as part of the Probity and Ethics course she stated:

“I reflected openly, on the fact that when I concurred 2 employments, to manage personal safety needs - my initial focus was on remaining skill full (sic), completing assessments on time, and completing all departmental stats to the highest standards – however I recognise that all service users expected, not only would I be competent and skillful (sic) but also that I would always be honest, open and working meticulously within employment contracts – never knowingly putting patients in any unnecessary risk.”

17. The Panel also noted that in the Registrant’s written remediation statement, dated 15 May 2024, she stated (amongst other things) that she (i) fully acknowledges and takes responsibility for her actions; (ii) recognises the need for continuous commitment to seeking guidance and support; (iii) has participated in professional development opportunities; (iv) has continuously engaged in reflective practice; (v) has implemented changes in her practice to prevent recurrence of misconduct; and (vi) is committed to communicating transparently and openly with her employers and the HCPC. The Registrant provided details of how she would achieve these goals and stated in conclusion that:

“By consistently applying all the remedial strategies … – I hope to gradually rebuild trust with HCPC, employers, colleagues, the public and within my professional regional OT community. I am aware that rebuilding trust takes time, but through sustained and genuine efforts, I know it can become achievable. By continuing to work towards implementing my future plans, I can continue to demonstrate my commitment to remediation and ethical practice as an OT, while also contributing positively to the profession and my community.”

18. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated considerable insight. The scope and level of the Registrant’s insight had developed over time and the Panel concluded that she fully recognises the serious nature of her admitted dishonesty, had taken the opportunity to reflect on her past behaviour and had taken steps to ensure that misconduct would not be repeated. In particular, the Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
• The Registrant’s dishonesty occurred during a period when she was experiencing difficulties in her private life.
• The Registrant made admissions at an early stage.
• The Registrant has expressed genuine remorse.

19. The Registrant has developed significant insight. The Panel was mindful that dishonesty undermines public trust and confidence in the profession. The Panel also noted that the Registrant was actively dishonest, and this behaviour was repeated and persisted for a significant period of time. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s dishonesty, although inherently serious, was not towards the highest level of the scale and she had done all that could be reasonably asked of her in terms of remedial steps. The Panel acknowledged that there were no ongoing patient safety concerns as a consequence of the Registrant’s dishonesty but concluded that the wider public interest would require a finding of impairment in order to uphold trust and confidence in the OT profession.

20. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that approval of the proposed Consent Order was both proportionate and appropriate. In reaching the conclusion that the case should be disposed of by way of a Consent Order the Panel noted that the Registrant had taken steps to reflect on her duty to uphold trust and confidence in her profession at all times and had demonstrated a willingness to continue to learn and develop. Furthermore, the Panel determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a final hearing, in circumstances where full admissions have been made to allegations which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession and where the Registrant has consented to being made subject to a 3-month Suspension Order. The Panel was satisfied that the short suspension order strikes the appropriate balance between sending a message of deterrence to the Registrant and the wider profession, upholding trust and confidence in the profession and the regulatory process whilst not depriving the public of the service of an otherwise competent and committed OT.

21. Therefore, the Panel approves the Consent Order.

22. Shortly prior to expiry of the Suspension Order it will be reviewed by a panel. It will be for that panel to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Heather Potter for a period of 3 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the Court of Session against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
The Panel determined that it would not be appropriate to impose an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

In reaching this conclusion the Panel was mindful that there are no ongoing patient safety concerns. The purpose of the substantive Suspension Order is to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct and send a message to the Registrant, the wider profession and the public that such behaviour will not be tolerated. The Panel was satisfied that this aim will be met by the publication of this decision and the imposition of the 3-month suspension either at the end of the appeal period or at some point in the future if the Registrant submits an unsuccessful appeal

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Heather Potter