Mr Edmund R Daly
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.
(as amended at the Final Hearing on 07 April 2015)
During the course of your employment as a Paramedic for the London Ambulance Service, on 29 May 2013, you:
1. Refused to attend emergency call CAD 707.
2. Made an emergency vehicle unavailable to the public before your shift had ended.
3. Did not attend emergency call CAD 707 whilst being aware no other crew was available to attend the call.
4. Your actions in particulars 1 -3 were not in the best interest of the patient.
5. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
6. By reason of that misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Registrant was employed as a Paramedic by London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust). At the relevant time, he was in a Team Leader position. A Team Leader’s responsibility includes the overseeing and supervision of staff. He was responsible for responding to emergency calls.
2. On 29 May 2013, an emergency call was allocated to the Registrant’s ambulance. The call related to a 43-year-old female service user who was feeling faint, dizzy, and was vomiting. The request to attend the service user had been made at 5.20am, when the Registrant was en route back to the station to finish his shift at 6am.
3. It was clear that the Registrant had refused to attend the call. A transcript of the conversation included a comment from him that it had been a busy shift and he was tired. However, there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that his health would have prevented him, at the time, from accepting the call.
4. As a consequence of this refusal, the emergency vehicle he was travelling in returned to the station and no other vehicle was available at that time.
5. There was a delay of approximately 90 minutes from the 5.20am call before another crew was able to attend the service user.
6. In imposing a Suspension Order in April of last year the earlier Panel said that any reviewing Panel may be assisted by evidence of the Registrant developing insight into the consequences of his actions on service users and on the profession itself.
7. Mr Phipps invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired and that the appropriate sanction would be to extend the current order of suspension. He stressed that the Registrant today had provided no documentation to support any claim that he was developing insight into his failures.
8. The Registrant himself gave evidence and told the Panel that he had had a few part time jobs over the past 12 months. He repeated apologies for his misconduct and reiterated that he had otherwise had an unblemished career as paramedic for some 30 years. He wanted to return to unrestricted practice.
9. The Panel was of the firm view that, in all the circumstances, the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. There was little sign of any insight or remediation and the Registrant gave little indication that he fully appreciated the seriousness of his actions. The Panel took the view that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose was to extend the current order of suspension for a further 12 months.
10. This would give the Registrant another opportunity to demonstrate remediation.
History of Hearings for Mr Edmund R Daly
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|04/04/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|
|07/04/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|