Chantal D M Hamon
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.
Whilst employed as an Occupational Therapist (Band 6 Senior Wheelchair Therapist) by Wirral Community NHS Trust at Wirral Wheelchair Service, between 19 October 2009 and 19 August 2011;
1. On a number of occasions you did not demonstrate basic seating principles, this included;
a) The correct setting of the footplate height, and
b) Identifying presenting pelvis position
2. On a number of occasions you did not gather all the necessary information in regards to the patient, this included;
a) On 1 July 2011 you did not obtain the correct information from Patient B0006159, with the result that your actions could have potentially put the patient at risk when they were travelling in an ambulance.
b) On 5 July 2011, you did not find out from Patient GB31731 why she was called into the Clinic, and
c) On 28 June 2011, you did not find out from the Patient the reason for their review and their attendance at the Clinic.
3. On a number of occasions you did not complete documentation in a timely manner, this included;
a) On 23 June 2011 you undertook four assessments and did not complete the computer write-ups until 11 days later.
4. On a number of occasions you did not fully document your assessment and recommendations on the Patient record, this included;
a) On 30 June 2011 in regards to Patient NMB0001300, you raised an order for alterations to their backrest and laterals but made no reference to this in the recorded assessment, and;
b) On 15 August 2011 in regards to Patient 58916, an order was raised for calf panels but there was no reference to this in the recorded assessment.
5. On a number of occasions, you did not retain information and skills learnt from previous training and observations, this included;
a) On 30 June 2011 you requested a ‘sagging’ back canvas which was inappropriate for the patient.
6. On a number of occasions within your written assessments, you were unsure how to describe basic postural presentations, this included;
a) Referring to pelvic rotation/obliquity as back/up.
7. On a number of occasions your communication with service users and colleagues was ineffective, this included that you;
a) Did not communicate the service criteria, referral and assessment processes to service users and colleagues as required.
8. The matters as set out in paragraphs 1-7 amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
9. By reason of this misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Panel determined that there was good service under the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended, of the Notice of Hearing dated 27 April 2015, sent by post and email to the Registrant’s HCPC registered address.
Proceeding in absence
2. The Panel heard a submission for the HCPC to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant was not present or represented and she has submitted a written representation (received on 19 May 2015) stating that she would not be attending the hearing on “02/05/2015”. The Panel concluded that this date of hearing is a typographical error and is intended to refer to the hearing today.
3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice to take account of the relevant Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and determined that the Registrant is aware of today’s hearing, having received a notice by post and email. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the Registrant has not applied for an adjournment. In addition, this is a mandatory review of a substantive order and therefore it is in the public interest that this review is dealt with expeditiously. The Panel has determined that the Registrant has exercised her choice not to attend the three previous hearings or the hearing today on a voluntary basis and is, therefore, unlikely to attend on a future date if this hearing is adjourned. It is fair, proportionate and in the interests of justice to proceed in her absence.
4. It was determined by the final hearing panel that the facts were found proved as to those matters alleged after amendment and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the time by reason of her lack of competence.
5. This is a review under Article 30 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. The Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her lack of competence.
6. In reaching its decision today, this Panel cannot go behind the findings of the original panel. The Panel has accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and exercised the principle of proportionality. It has also had regard to the HCPC’s “Indicative Sanctions Policy”.
7. The Registrant has not engaged with the required remediation since the suspension was imposed. In her letter received in May 2015, she states that she is working as a Band 2 Therapy Assistant. She says, “My intention is to further pursue a Band 3 Therapy Assistant (rather than a qualified) role in the coming year and continue with training opportunities to further develop my competence, confidence and level of consistency.”
8. The previous panels have been clear about what a review Panel might consider helpful evidence to demonstrate that the Registrant has taken action to remedy her failings. The Panel is satisfied that she remains a risk to the public due to unresolved deficiencies.
9. Accordingly, the Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
10. The public interest includes the need to protect service users, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.
11. In reviewing the current Suspension Order before it expires, the Panel first considered taking no action or mediation and rejected these outcomes as, in the circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate and inadequate to take no further action.
12. The Panel next considered imposing a Caution Order and rejected this sanction. The Panel determined that this sanction could not meet the safeguards required to protect the public.
13. The Panel next considered replacing the current Suspension Order with a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel determined that there are no suitable, verifiable or workable conditions that could be formulated to address adequately the proved lack of competence.
14. The Panel next considered whether to extend the existing period of suspension. In all the circumstances, the Panel today has determined that the existing Suspension Order should not be further extended, because the Registrant does not wish to return to practise in a registered occupation.
15. The Panel has taken into account that HCPC sanctions are not intended to be punitive, but are only imposed when it is necessary to do so to safeguard the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The HCPC “Indicative Sanctions Policy” states, “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.”
16. The previous periods of suspension have afforded the Registrant ample opportunities to provide the information required to remedy her failings and facilitate a return to registered practice. The Registrant has decided to pursue a different career path and therefore does not intend to remedy matters. Furthermore, there is now an increased risk to patients caused by her being unable to practise since December 2012, which has limited her ability to remediate her practising skills.
17. The Panel has concluded that a Striking Off Order is now the only appropriate sanction. A further Suspension Order is not appropriate because the evidence suggests that the Registrant does not wish to take the necessary steps to facilitate a return to practice. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by a further suspension.
That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Chantal D M Hamon from the Register on the expiry of the existing order.
History of Hearings for Chantal D M Hamon
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|02/06/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|