Anne M Clews
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 firstname.lastname@example.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
During the course of your employment as a Radiographer with Spire Bristol you;
1. On 30 April 2013, while on duty drank alcohol contained in a soft drink bottle.
2. On 3 May 2013, were in possession of alcohol when due to work.
3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1-2 constitute misconduct.
4. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. This is a mandatory review under article 30 (1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 of a Suspension Order imposed for a period of 12 months on 18 August 2014.
2. At this hearing the HCPC was represented by Mr Michael Demissie. Mrs Clews attended the hearing but was not represented. In carrying out its review today the Panel has considered all the information in the bundle including the decision of the Panel which imposed the original order. It has heard the evidence of Mrs Clews. The case concerns Mrs Clews’ employment as a Radiographer working in the Magnetic Resonance Imagining (MRI) Department at the Spire Bristol Hospital.
3. The previous panel found that she had either drank or been in possession of alcohol whilst at work in April and May 2013. The panel found that those matters amounted to misconduct and were repeated. The panel found her fitness to practise to be impaired and imposed a sanction of 12 months suspension.
4. In her evidence the Registrant said that her ‘life had changed’ and she was caring for her close relatives and had no further wish to practice as a Radiographer. She also said that she was worried about stressful situations, would find working under supervision very difficult because of her experience and the fact that she had been a superintendent previously. She said that although she had loved her profession she no longer wished to remain on the register.
5. The Panel considered all of the matters and found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise today is still impaired. She has engaged with the process. She has not been able to work as a Radiographer since her suspension or keep up to date with professional developments. She gave evidence that she did not have the time or the financial resources to engage in Continuous Professional Development (CPD). There is thus no evidence of remediation.
6. The Panel then went on to consider the question of sanction. It bore in mind the Indicative Sanctions Policy and approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive progressing to the most restrictive. Because of all the information put before the Panel it considered that the sanctions of no action, mediation, a caution order or a conditions of practice order would not be suitable in this case bearing in mind that the Registrant was not working and said that she had no intention of working. The Panel also considered that these sanctions would be insufficient to protect the public.
7. The Panel then considered a sanction of suspension. The matters found proved against the Registrant were serious and repeated. The Panel considers that her behaviour amounted to recklessness. Subsequently the situation could have been remedied but the Registrant says that she has no intention of working as Radiographer in the future. A sanction of suspension could be proportionate in relation to the matters found proved nevertheless the Panel bears in mind the Indicative Sanctions Policy in particular paragraphs 29 and 31. Paragraph 29; ‘Suspension should be considered where the Panel considers that a Caution or Conditions of Practice are insufficient or inappropriate to protect the public or where the allegation is of a serious nature but there is a realistic prospect that repetition will not occur and, thus, that striking off is not merited’ and Paragraph 31 ‘Suspension is punitive in nature and this needs to be borne in mind. If the evidence suggests that the Registrant will be unable to resolve or remedy his or her failings then striking off may be the more appropriate action…’
8. Whilst the panel understands the personal factors which have impinged on Mrs Clews’ fitness to practise it accepts Mrs Clews’ assertion that returning to work as a Radiographer is not realistic or practical for her. In all of the circumstances of this case and taking into particular regard the Registrant’s evidence the Panel considers that a striking off order is the only proportionate and appropriate sanction.
History of Hearings for Anne M Clews
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|06/08/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|