Ms Yvette Margaret Pauline
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 email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
During the course of your employment as an Occupational Therapist with
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde between May 2011 to January 2012, you:
1. Did not prepare assessment and treatment plans to an appropriate professional standard in that they:
a. Were insufficiently clear;
b. Were generalised and lacked detail;
c. Did not contain supportive evidence;
d. Had omissions.
2. Overwrote three treatment plans’ review dates in order to delay their due dates.
3. Did not complete tasks in the time frame expected by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
4. Did not produce reports of your clinical activities between November 2011 and January 2012.
5. Were unable to practise autonomously and required frequent supervision and assistance from colleagues and manager.
6. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 5 constitute either misconduct or a lack of competence.
7. By reason of your misconduct or a lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. At the hearing, the HCPC was represented by Ms. Amaka Rapu. The Registrant, Ms Yvette Margaret Pauline, did not attend but was represented by Ms. Laura-Anne Murray of Thompsons, solicitors.
2. The Panel heard that the allegations against the Registrant arouse in the period between May 2011 and January 2013 during her employment as an Occupational Therapist with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
3. The Panel heard submissions from both Ms. Rapu and Ms. Murray. The Panel heard from Ms. Rapu about the allegations against the Registrant and the considerations which the HCPC has taken into account in proposing the Voluntary Removal Agreement. Miss Rapu submitted that there was no formal procedure for a Registrant to be removed from the HCPC Register while facing allegations that her fitness to practise is impaired. She explained that a Voluntary Removal Agreement had been agreed between the parties and she referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Practice Notes on Discontinuance of Proceedings and Disposal of Cases by Consent. She confirmed that the allegations related to misconduct or lack of competence and invited the Panel to approve the Agreement.
4. In her submissions to the Panel, Ms. Murray confirmed that the Registrant accepted that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct or lack of competence and was content with the terms of the Voluntary Removal Agreement which properly reflected what had been agreed by the parties and had been signed by the Registrant. She said that the Registrant had not sought to deny the allegations and had shown insight into her professional shortcomings.
5. She referred the Panel to the Registrant’s health and said that the Registrant’s contract of employment had been terminated on 31 August 2014, on the grounds of ill-health. The Registrant was subsequently granted a NHS pension on the grounds of ill- health from 9 October 2014.
6. The Panel has considered the submissions which it has received and also the documents contained in the bundle. The Panel noted that the allegations related to concerns about the Registrant’s practice as an Occupational Therapist including her failure to deal properly and appropriately with assessment and treatment plans as well as failing to complete tasks in the expected time frame and failing to produce reports of clinical activities. In addition, it was alleged that the Registrant had been unable to practise autonomously and had required constant supervision and assistance from colleagues and a manager.
7. The Panel has carefully considered her General Practitioners detailed report dated 28 November 2014. In that report, her GP described her deteriorating state of health and stated “it would be my opinion that [the Registrant] would be unlikely to function independently as an Occupational Therapist in the future”. The Panel noted that the Registrant had qualified as an Occupational Therapist in 1986 and appears to have had a satisfactory career prior to sustaining a head injury in 2001. Her subsequent professional and personal difficulties appear to have developed following her injury. While the Panel has not had the benefit of hearing the full evidence in this case, it has taken the view, based on the medical evidence in the bundle, that the Registrant’s professional shortcomings may well be explained by adverse physical and/or mental health.
8. Having reached that conclusion, the Panel considered whether the case ought to be considered by a Panel of the Health Committee but determined that there would be no benefit in doing so. It would result in unnecessary delay for all parties in finalising the matter and would not be in the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case.
9. The Panel had before it a Voluntary Removal Agreement which had been agreed between the Health and Care Professions Council and the Registrant and signed and executed by the parties, in terms of which the Registrant admitted the allegations which had been made against her and agreed that she will resign from the HCPC Register on the terms and conditions fully set out in that Agreement. A declaration that there was no other matter of which the Registrant was aware which might give rise to any other allegation was also signed by the Registrant.
10. The Panel considered the terms of the Voluntary Removal Agreement. The Panel considered that the Agreement clearly set out the basis for discontinuing the allegations. The Panel was satisfied that the public interest was well served by the provisions of the Voluntary Removal Agreement. In particular, the Panel was satisfied that public interest considerations, including protection of service users, maintenance of the reputation of the Occupational Therapy profession and upholding proper standards of conduct and competence, were adequately served by the removal of the Registrant’s name from the HCPC Register. The Panel considers that it is in the Registrant’s interests and also in the public interest to facilitate the removal of the Registrant from the HCPC by approving the Voluntary Removal Agreement.
11. The Panel has therefore accepted the submissions of both Ms. Rapu and Ms. Murray and has also accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has determined to approve the Voluntary Removal Agreement and to grant the Consent Order in the form accompanying the Voluntary Removal Agreement.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Ms Yvette Margaret Pauline
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|12/10/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Voluntary Removal agreed|