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 firstname.lastname@example.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
(the following allegation was considered by a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee at the Substantive Hearing on 7-8 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.
At the Substantive Hearing, the Panel found all of particulars of the allegation (1 – 4 above) proved and that they amounted to misconduct. That Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a Suspension Order for 12 months as a sanction.
The Order was reviewed on 7 April 2016. The Panel at the Review Hearing extended the Suspension Order for a further period of 12 months.
1. The Panel was informed that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s address as it appears on the Register on 3 March 2017.
2. The Panel was satisfied that good service has been effected in accordance with the Rules and it was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken by the HCPC to inform the Registrant of today’s proceedings.
Proceeding in absence
3. Ms Owusu-Akyem submitted that, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, it was appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She stated that the Registrant has not requested an adjournment.
4. The Panel took particular note of the contents of an email sent by the Registrant to the HCPC on 3 March 2017 in which he stated that he would not be attending the hearing.
5. The Panel concluded that, in all the circumstances, it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests for this mandatory review to proceed today. The Panel has determined, therefore, to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
6. The Registrant was employed as a Paramedic by London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust). In May 2013, he was a Team Leader and his role included the overseeing and supervision of staff. A particular duty of his was to respond to emergency calls and to oversee staff at the Waterloo Ambulance Station (the Station).
7. On 29 May 2013, at 05:20am, an emergency call was allocated to the Registrant’s ambulance. It related to a 43-year-old female service user who was feeling faint, dizzy and was vomiting. Upon receiving the call, the Registrant contacted the Emergency Operations Centre and questioned the call allocation. He was en-route back to the Station to finish his shift at 6am. He did not attend the call, although he was aware that no other crew was available.
8. There was a delay of approximately 90 minutes from the 05:20am call before another crew was able to attend the service user.
9. At the HCPC’s Substantive Hearing of this matter, on 7-8 April 2015, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and it, by way of sanction, imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.
10. The Order was later reviewed on 7 April 2016. This first reviewing panel announced that, at that stage, the Registrant had shown little sign of any insight or remediation and that it seemed that he had not appreciated to the full the seriousness of his failures. In extending the Order, that Panel said that this would provide the Registrant with another opportunity to demonstrate remediation.
11. At the hearing today, Ms Owusu-Akyem invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired. She suggested that the appropriate sanction might be to strike the Registrant’s name from the Register.
12. The only new information that this Panel has been given is a brief email from the Registrant, dated 3 March 2017, which stated that he no longer has any interest in practising or returning to his chosen profession. He further indicated that he had taken early retirement and has since been living on his pension.
13. The Panel is of the firm view that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. It is plain that the Registrant has decided not to return to the paramedic profession and that he has done nothing over the previous 12 months to seek to remediate his past misconduct. In all the circumstances, the Panel has decided that to extend the Order of suspension further would not be appropriate and that the only proportionate sanction, to protect members of the public and in the wider public interest, would now be to impose a Striking Off Order.
That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Edmund R Daly from the Register with immediate effect.
No notes available