Ms Anne Allardice
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 practice as an Occupational Therapist at Bristol City Council, between July 2010 and April 2012:
1. You did not display appropriate communication skills in that:
a) you did not demonstrate effective verbal and non – verbal communication skills appropriate to the situation
b) you did not demonstrate effective listening skills, including observing non-verbal cues from service users and their family members
c) you did not adequately explain to service users the reason for obtaining consent and the purpose of assessments, home visits and interventions.
2. You did not manage your case load in that:
a) you were unable to manage a full case load
b) you were unable to practise unsupervised.
3. You failed to demonstrate appropriate clinical reasoning and problem solving skills in that you:
a) did not clearly establish the nature of the problems that prompted the referrals
b) offered solutions to service users without fully establishing what the problem was
c) asked for service users' medical history but did not understand the implications of medical conditions
d) did not demonstrate appropriate knowledge and understanding of equipment.
4. You performed inappropriate assessments and/or clinical interventions, in particular:
a) on 24 August 2011 you:
i. not proved
ii. failed to ask Service User A about their skin integrity.
b) On 25 January 2012 you:
i. made limited records during the visit with service user B
ii. not proved
iii. not proved
iv. did not comment on or explain the potential hazards in relation to the missing footplates from Service User B's wheelchair.
c) On 30 March 2012 you:
i. did not demonstrate awareness of service user C’s pain levels and/ or exhaustion
ii. did not expand on questions and/ or did not ask questions in any clear order giving the impression of a lack of focus and clear purpose
iii. asked unnecessary questions where the information was already available on PARIS.
d) On 2 April 2012 you:
i. did not engage fully with service user D and did not notice that service user D seemed to be tiring
ii. not proved
iii. not proved
iv. measured service user D for a new chair inaccurately in that you measured the existing chair and not Service User D.
5. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
6. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Registrant was not present, but had sent a letter to the HCPC from her registered address dated 1 April 2016 and stated ‘I do not want to engage any further in your processes. I here return one of the large bundles of documents you have sent me.’
2. The Panel was satisfied on the documentation that the notice of hearing had been properly served upon the Registrant in accordance with the HCPC Practice Note “Service of Documents” August 2012.
3. Ms Ebanks applied for the review hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant pursuant to rule 11 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure Rules) 2003. She referred the Panel to the letter of the 1 April 2016 sent by the Registrant saying that she no longer wished to engage with the process. The Panel carefully considered the circumstances and the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” August 2012. The Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself and there was no significant risk of injustice if the review hearing proceeded. The Panel further determined that the interests of justice required this review hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
4. Ms Ebanks submitted that the contents of the letter sent by the Registrant on 1 April 2016 demonstrated the Registrant’s lack of insight and her wish to practise no further as an Occupational Therapist.
5. In this case, the Registrant’s proven lack of competence had been wide-ranging. The Panel was particularly concerned that the Registrant had been unable to handle her case load, which had manifested itself in a number of specific failings.
6. The Registrant has clearly indicated that she no longer wishes to practise as an Occupational Therapist. She has shown no insight into her failings and given no evidence of any attempts to address her deficiencies. In these circumstances the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had remediated her competence in all the areas that had been found deficient. Therefore, the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently remains impaired.
7. The Panel next considered what, if any, sanction was appropriate and proportionate in this case.
8. No further action or the imposition of a Caution Order would fail to promote adequate protection of service users and would not address the wider public interest of maintaining public confidence in the profession. Both of these options were therefore rejected.
9. The Panel considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order, but could not be satisfied that workable and measurable conditions could be drafted to sufficiently address the Registrant’s competency failings. The Panel therefore also rejected a Conditions of Practice Order as being sufficient and proportionate.
10. The Panel moved on to consider whether to extend the present Suspension Order. The Registrant has now been suspended for a continuous period of over two years and the Panel is aware that it now has the power to make a Striking Off order. The Panel first determined whether it would be sufficient and proportionate to extend the present Suspension Order in order to protect service users and the wider public interest. The Registrant has clearly indicated that she does not wish to remain on the Register and that she has no wish to remediate the identified deficiencies in her competence as an Occupational Therapist. In these circumstances the Panel considers that an order of Suspension together with a mandatory review before its expiry would be insufficient to protect the public and not proportionate to the serious deficiencies identified and not corrected by the Registrant.
11. The Panel therefore make a Striking Off order in this case. This is the only order that the Panel considers is proportionate and sufficient to protect the public and is in the public interest. In making this order, the Panel has also noted the comments made by the Registrant of 1 April 2016 ‘I will resign from BAOT as soon as I am informed I am no longer on the register.’
That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Ms Anne Allardice from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.
The order imposed today will apply from 22 May 2016.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Ms Anne Allardice
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|22/04/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|
|23/10/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|