Mr David Raymond Minshull
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.
Allegation (as found proved):
During the course of your employment as a Hearing Aid Dispenser in February 2011 while employed by Regional Hearing Services, you:
1. Carried out a hearing assessment on Service User A and you:
a) did not carry out and/or record a bone conduction assessment.
2. On leaving your role with Regional Health Services, you used confidential information gained during your employment with them and used it for your personal gain in that you sold Service User A a hearing aid on 15 April 2011.
3. After selling the hearing aid to Service User A, you:
a) did not provide her with a receipt for her purchase,
b) did not make acceptable arrangements for follow up or aftercare,
c) set the hearing aid for a new user and left it at that setting for 12 months without arranging for further adjustment.
4. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 a-c constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
5. The matter set out in paragraph 2 constitutes misconduct.
6. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Application to adjourn
1. On 18 January 2017, the Registrant applied in writing for an adjournment as his supervisor had been signed off sick on 14 January 2017 for 14 days and would have difficulty in providing a report for today’s Review hearing. At today’s hearing, he renewed his application on the grounds that although he had been able to provide certain information for the review hearing, he had not been able to obtain a supervisor’s report. Ms. Hamilton for the Council opposed the application, submitting that the documentation which had been provided by the Registrant might be sufficient and that as this was a mandatory review of an order that was due to expire on 3 March 2017, and it would be very unlikely that it could be re-scheduled before that date, that the hearing should proceed.
2. The Panel has taken note of the matters set out in the HCPC’s Practice Note on Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings as they apply to this case, and particularly the importance of ensuring that the Registrant has a fair hearing and the public interest in mandatory review hearings being heard at the allotted time. It has taken note of the submissions of both parties. It has read all the documentation, in particular the new material provided today. It has received and accepted legal advice.
3. The Panel has decided to proceed with today’s mandatory review hearing. It is satisfied that a fair hearing can be conducted. The Registrant is present and can, if he chooses to do so, give evidence or make submissions as to his current fitness to practise, compliance with the conditions imposed on his registration, and about what he has been doing since taking up his new employment.
4. The Registrant, David Raymond Minshull is a registered Hearing Aid Dispenser. On 6 August 2013, his fitness to practise was found impaired on grounds of misconduct and lack of competence arising out of matters that formed the basis of the Allegation set out above. At that time, the Registrant was suspended from practise for a period of 12 months. That order was reviewed on 25 July 2014 when a Conditions of Practice Order was imposed for 12 months. Since then, that Order has been reviewed on 6 August 2015 when the Conditions of Practice Order was varied and extended for 12 months, and most recently on 3 August 2016 when the order was further varied and extended for a further 6 months.
5. In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of the HCPC’s Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired”. It received and accepted legal advice. It has noted all the information put before it including the determinations of the original Panel and subsequent reviewing Panels. It has had regard to the submissions of the Council and to the evidence given on oath by the Registrant.
6. The new information since the previous review hearing is as follows:
a. on 3 October 2016, an email from the Registrant to the HCPC giving notification that he had secured employment with UK Hearing Care (commencing on 12 September 2016) and providing the name of his supervisor;
b. an email dated 18 January 2017 from the Registrant to the HCPC indicating that his supervisor would be unable to provide a report for the hearing as he had been signed off sick for 14 days on 14 January 2017;
c. the Registrant has undertaken a comprehensive induction program at the start of his employment;
d. a CPD record detailing the steps taken by the Registrant since the last review hearing to keep his skills and knowledge up to date;
e. an email dated 25 January 2017 from the Registrant to the Council in which he explains that due to the ill health of his previous supervisor, a new supervisor has been appointed and providing relevant details as required by the current conditions of practice;
f. a reflective statement by the Registrant written on 31 January 2017;
g. a letter dated 1 February 2017 from the Registrant’s current employers in the name of one of the senior partners entitled “Return to practice supervisor’s report”, together with a self-assessment spreadsheet record recently completed by the Registrant in which he compared his competency across a wide range of skills from the start of his employment with where he considers he is at today’s date. This document will be used as an ongoing means of development and training.
7. The Panel noted that the purpose of a review hearing was to assess current fitness to practise. The Panel agreed with the previous Panels’ assessment that the Registrant’s misconduct and lack of competence was capable of being remedied. It has carefully questioned the Registrant so that it can assess the extent to which the conditions imposed on his registration have been complied with.
8. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has now made sufficient progress in showing that he has insight into and reflected on his failings. The information provided to the Panel demonstrated that the Registrant’s lack of competence has been corrected. The Registrant having undertaken a comprehensive induction and training program at the start of his employment and has also provided evidence of regular CPD activities undertaken which covered technological aspects as well as aspects of client management and wider aspects of adult audiology as required by the conditions imposed on his registration at the last review hearing. Although there was no report from the Registrant’s supervisor as required under the conditions of practice, the Panel accepted that this was due to the supervisor being on sick leave and noted that the senior partner of the Registrant’s employers has confirmed that the supervisor was satisfied with the Registrant’s “progress in his practical and applied skills and knowledge”. The Panel was satisfied that the risk of repetition of the behaviour that led to the finding of misconduct was very low.
9. The Panel was also satisfied that public confidence in the Hearing Aid Dispener profession no longer required a finding that impairment remained in this case where the Registrant has fulfilled the conditions of practise imposed on his registration and remediated his misconduct and lack of competence.
10. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired and that the current Conditions of Practice Order should be revoked with immediate effect.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mr David Raymond Minshull
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|02/02/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||No further action|
|03/08/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Conditions of Practice|
|06/08/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Conditions of Practice|