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 Band 5 Physiotherapist for
Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between the dates of
February 2012 and December 2012:
1. You did not keep accurate records
2. You did not complete assessment and treatment plans to an acceptable Standard
3. You did not demonstrate clinical analysis and problem solving skills to an acceptable standard
4. On 2 December 2011 you sent a Facebook message to Patient A and invited her out for a drink.
5. On another occasion whilst out in a pub in Trowbridge you approached Patient A and said:
a. "I know you" or words to that effect; and
b. you claimed to have treated Patient A for a bad back when you did not.
6. On 30 November 2012 you went into the Wheelchair Service at
Melksham Hospital part of the Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation
Trust, breaching the terms of your suspension
7. The matters described in paragraphs 1-6 amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence; and
8. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.
Proceeding in absence
1. Ms Ebanks applied for the hearing to proceed in Mr McMackin’s absence. She informed the Panel that the Registrant had not engaged with this process having failed to attend his substantive hearing on 21 - 22 July 2014, nor had he responded to the notice for this hearing. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel’s discretion to proceed in a registrant’s absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
2. The Panel was satisfied that notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant dated 29 May 2015 by first class post and by email and had been served in accordance with the rules. The Panel concluded that Mr McMakin had voluntarily absented himself. The Panel noted that the purpose of this hearing was a statutory review of a suspension order which was imposed on 22 July 2014. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interests that the order should be reviewed expeditiously. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
Decision on Impairment
3. The Panel had regard to the decision of the previous Panel who had found the facts of allegations 1 - 5 proved. That Panel also found the Statutory grounds of lack of competence in relation to allegations 1 - 3 and misconduct in relation to allegation 4 and 5 well founded.
4. The Panel was presented with no information from the Registrant in relation to any steps he had taken since the imposition of the suspension order to remedy his lack of competence and misconduct. The Panel noted that in its determination of 22 July 2014 that Panel made it clear that it may be helpful to a reviewing Panel for the Registrant to provide to it any evidence of insight and reflection into his practice and any plans he may have formed in order to remedy his shortcomings. Information about any work he may have been involved in would also, in that Panel’s view, prove useful at any subsequent review.
5. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s lack of competence identified by the previous Panel, amounted to basic failings over a long period and that his misconduct raised serious concerns about his appreciation of professional conduct and behaviour and maintaining proper boundaries. In the absence of any evidence of remediation, the Panel determined that the Registrant remains at risk of causing harm to patients and of bringing his profession into disrepute. Accordingly the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
Decision on Sanction
6. The Panel considered the submissions made by Ms Ebanks on behalf of the HCPC and received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
7. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of any sanction was not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator, by the maintenance of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Policy. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of seriousness.
8. In determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel had regard to the findings of lack of competence and misconduct made by the previous Panel. The Panel also bore in mind that the Registrant has not provided the material suggested by the previous Panel and that his fitness to practise remains impaired.
9. The Panel first considered taking no action, however it concluded that this would be inappropriate due to the wide range of matters found proved and would not be sufficient to protect patients or the reputation of the profession. The Panel considered that this was not an appropriate case for mediation and that a caution order would be insufficient.
10. The Panel was unable to formulate any workable or practicable conditions of practice, given the Registrant’s lack of engagement and the absence of any information as to his current situation.
11. The Panel carefully considered whether to confirm or extend the current Suspension Order and was mindful that the purpose of such an order includes a Registrant being able to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired at the time when the order is reviewed. The Panel considered that the previous Panel had given the Registrant the chance to remedy his failings and demonstrate that at this review.
12. The Panel concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing or extending the current suspension order, given the Registrant’s lack of engagement throughout the whole process of the HCPC proceedings against him. The Panel was mindful that a striking off order is a sanction of last resort and appropriate only when no other sanction was sufficient.
13. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel concluded that a striking off order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.
No information currently available
History of Hearings for Adam McMackin
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|02/07/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|