Alexander W Dominy

Profession: Social worker

Registration Number: SW103066

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 08/10/2018 End: 16:00 12/10/2018

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Suspended

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 tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

 

Whilst registrant as a Social Worker and employed by North Yorkshire

 County Council ("the Council"):

1. On or around 27 June 2016, you wrote and/or sent a reference to your recruitment agency purporting to be written by Person A, when this was not the case.

 

2. Between November 2015 and 31 May 2016, you did not maintain adequate case notes on the Council's electronic system in respect of one or more of the following service users:

 

a) Service User G;

 

b) Service User H;

 

c) Service User K;

 

d) Service User L;

 

e) Service User M;

 

3. In relation to Service User B:

 

a) You did not record the service user's health conditions and/or medical background on the case file;

 

b) You did not record a case note relating to your visit conduct on 18

January 2016 within 72 hours and/or in a timely manner

c) You did not:

 i. conduct a second visit to Service User B until March 2016, despite the urgent nature of this referral; and/or

 ii. record an explanation for the delay in conducting the second visit.

d) As part of Service User B's Needs Assessment, you did not discuss and/or record a discussion with Service User B and/or his family regarding the range of care options;

 

e) You did not offer and/or record that you offered a carer's assessment to Service User B's family;

 

f) As part of Service User B's Needs Assessment you did not record your consideration of the impact of Service User B's visual impairment on his potential move to residential care;

 g) You did not record sufficient information about how Service User B would like his needs to be met whilst in residential care within the Needs Assessment and/or support plan;

h) You did not obtain Service User B's consent prior to completing an assessment and/or did not upload a signed consent form to the Council's electronic system;

 

i) You did not send and/or record that you sent copies of the following to Service User B and/or Service User B's family

 

i. Service user B's Support Plan; and/or

 

ii. Record of Service User B's Needs Assessment

 

4. In relation to Service User P:

 

a) You copied and pasted information from an assessment completed by a Social Care Coordinator in August 2015 into your assessment of 8 June 2016 and did not make any, or adequate updates to this;

 

b) You did not include adequate information regarding safeguarding concerns in your assessment of 8 June 2016;

 

c) You did not discuss and/or record your discussion with Service User P regarding:

 

i. hate/mate crime; and/or

 

ii. changes to living environment; and/or

 

iii. issues relating to harassment and bullying; and/or

 

iv. the burglary

d) You did not record your referral of Service User P to the Living Well Tea, on the Council's electronic system in a timely manner;

e) You did not upload a signed consent form to the Council's electronic system in a timely manner;

f) You did not complete the Needs Assessment which was started in March 2016, in a timely manner.

5) You did not consistently complete the section on care and support eligibility in respect of your assessments in relation to:

a) Service User B

b) Service User C

c) Service User D

d) Service User E

e) Service User F

f) Service User K

g) Service User L 

6. You copied information from previous assessments into your own assessments and did not make any, or adequate updates to this, in respect of:

 

a) Service User D

b) Service User E

c) Service User F

d) Service User G

e) Service User H

f) Service User I

g) Service User J

h) Service User M

i) Service User O 

7. In relation to Service User N, Following your visit on 18 May 2015, you did not complete the written Needs Assessment and/or record your rationale for not completing it.

8. In relation to Service User R: 

a) You did not include information regarding how Service User R's caring role had impacted upon her health and wellbeing in the Impact of Caring Assessment;

 

b) You did not include any reference to Service User R's bereavement and/or how this had affected her in the Impact of Caring Assessment;

 

9. Your actions described at particular 1 were dishonest;

 

10. Your actions described in particulars 1 to 9 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.

 

11. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

 

Finding

Preliminary matters
Service
1. On 9 July 2018, notice of this hearing was sent by first class post to the Registrant’s registered address. A copy of the notice was also sent by email. The notice contained the required Particulars.

2. The Panel was satisfied, on the documentary evidence provided, that the Registrant had been given proper notice of this hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
3. Mr Dite, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised that the discretion to proceed in a Registrant's absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.

4. Mr Dite set out the chronology of the proceedings as follows:
i. 22 May 2017, the Registrant had submitted a response to the Investigating Committee, which had been included in the HCPC bundle before the Panel;
ii. 1 June 2017, the Notice of the Allegation was sent to the Registrant;
iii. 4 June 2017, the Registrant had completed and signed the HCPC directions form, at that stage indicating that he intended to attend and represent himself;
iv. 19 June 2017, the Registrant emailed Kingsley Napley Solicitors to confirm that he would like his written statement included within the final hearing bundle;
v. 3 November 2017, an email was received from the Registrant to say that he would not be attending a hearing, thought to be a reference to a preliminary hearing;
vi. 18 January 2018, the preliminary hearing was held, which the Registrant did not attend;
vii. 22 January 2018, a new notice of Allegation was sent to the Registrant;
viii. 26 January 2018, the Registrant confirmed that he was willing to receive the hearing bundle documentation electronically;
ix. 16 May 2018, the Registrant contacted the HCPC and made reference to the length of time that the proceedings were taking and that he had been left in limbo for two years; he did not comment on whether he would be attending the final hearing;
x. 4 July 2018, a notice for a final hearing scheduled in September 2018 was sent to the Registrant;
xi. 9 July 2018, the amended notice of hearing was sent to the Registrant, as the original date was moved due to witness difficulties;
xii. 3 August 2018, the final hearing bundle was sent to the Registrant electronically.

5. The Panel noted that there had been no contact from the Registrant since May 2018. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had fulfilled its obligations and taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant in accordance with the Rules.

6. The Allegation dates back to 2015 and 2016. The Panel was aware that there were two witnesses in attendance to give evidence on the first day, and a third witness who was due to give evidence on day two.

7. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s absence was voluntary, thereby waiving his right to attend. He had not instructed a legal representative to attend on his behalf, nor had he sought an adjournment. The Panel was of the view that there was no indication that he would attend a future hearing if the case were adjourned. In light of the Registrant having waived his right to attend, the Panel considered that the public interest for the hearing to take place outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding in his absence.

Application to amend the Allegation
8. Mr Dite, on behalf of the HCPC, applied to amend what he described as three minor typographical errors within the Allegation, notified to the Registrant within the hearing bundle, sent to him on 3 August 2018. Mr Dite explained the first amendment was in the stem to change ‘registrant’ to ‘registered’; the second was in Particular 3(b) to change ‘conduct’ to ‘conducted’; and the third was in Particular 5(d) to change ‘Tea’ to ‘Team’. He submitted that there would be no prejudice caused to the Registrant.

9. The Panel, having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, determined to allow the application to amend the Allegation. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments could be made without injustice to the Registrant as they simply corrected the typographical errors within the Allegation.

Parts of the Hearing in Private
10. The Panel determined that any matters raised in respect of the Registrant’s health should be heard in private. This was justified in order to protect his private life.

Background
11. The Registrant is a Social Worker, registered with the HCPC. He was employed as a Newly Qualified Social Worker (NQSW) at North Yorkshire County Council (the Council) from 23 November 2015 until 15 July 2016. He began his employment with the Council six months after qualifying as a Social Worker, having previously worked in Children’s Services in a different authority, and was still on his Assisted and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) programme.
 
12. He was employed at the Council as a Social Care Assessor in the Learning Disability Team within Adult Social Care. His role involved the assessment of vulnerable people, reviewing and determining eligibility for services, assessing carers, commissioning care, and identifying any safeguarding concerns.

13. When the Registrant began his employment at the Council, he was given a six month probationary period and provided with a six week induction programme. The induction programme covered familiarisation of the local area, local divisions within the Council, meeting with the Council’s local providers, becoming acquainted with the resources available, and shadowing more experienced team members. The Registrant was also provided with e-learning and other mandatory training.

14. The Council kept all service user records electronically. The electronic recording data base system used by the Council was the Liquid Logic Adults system (Liquid Logic). The case recording policy in place at the Council at that time was that: ‘Staff must ensure their case recording and entries on [the electronic recording data base] are done contemporaneously wherever possible or within three working days at the latest after each contact/event’.

15. The Registrant’s Line Manager was MA. His ASYE assessor was VA, who was allocated to the Registrant on 14 January 2016. The Registrant had been allocated a caseload of around 30 cases (the norm for the department being 50). In around January 2016, MA started to have concerns about areas of the Registrant’s practice, particularly in terms of his record keeping.

16. On 10 May 2016, MA wrote to the Registrant to confirm with him that his probationary period had been extended until 23 June 2016. The reasons given  for the extension were explained in the letter as relating to case note recording, timeliness of assessment and completion, inputting to Liquid Logic and issues with following the Liquid Logic systems causing delays in the provision of  support to service users.

17. On 31 May 2016, MA conducted an audit of all of the Registrant’s cases. Following this, MA formulated an action plan for the Registrant, which was discussed with him during a meeting on 2 June 2016. Particulars 2 to 8 of the Allegation relate to the alleged concerns arising from the audit of the Registrant’s caseload.

18. In June 2016, MA went on annual leave for two weeks and asked her Line Manager, SD, to meet with and support the Registrant while she was away. SD met with the Registrant on three occasions.

19. On 20 June 2016, the Registrant handed in his resignation to SD, indicating that he did not think that adult social care was for him. His resignation was accepted and the Registrant was set to leave the Council once he had worked his notice period.

20. On 27 June 2016, SD received an email from a Recruitment agency requesting confirmation that a reference, regarding the Registrant, had been provided by her. It is alleged that the Registrant dishonestly fabricated the reference and cut and pasted SD’s electronic signature on to it. Particulars 1 and 9 relate to this Allegation, with SD referred to in Particular 1 as ‘Person A’.

21. On 28 June 2016, the Registrant was suspended from the Council. On 30 June 2016, the Council sent an email to the HCPC informing it of the Registrant’s suspension for allegedly falsifying the reference, as well as referring him to Occupational Health. On 1 July 2016, the Registrant self referred the matter to the HCPC. In July 2016, TS was instructed by the Council’s Human Resources (HR) Department to investigate the allegation in respect of the reference. The Registrant’s employment with the Council ended on 15 July 2016.

Decision on facts
22. On behalf of the HCPC, the Panel heard live evidence from SD, Service Manager for the Learning and Disability Team covering the areas of Hambleton and Richmond within the Council; TS, formerly the Business Development Manager in the Health and Adult Services Team, and MA, Team Manager in the Learning Disability and Complex Needs team within Adult Social Care, who was the Registrant’s Line Manager.

23. The Panel was also provided with a documentary exhibits bundle, which included:
• a copy of the allegedly fabricated reference by SD;
• printed copies of the records of supervision conducted by MA with the Registrant;
• relevant correspondence;
• MA’s Case File Audits;
• PDF printouts of case notes and assessments inputted by the Registrant onto Liquid Logic;
• summaries of investigative interviews conducted by TS; including that held with VA the Registrant’s ASYE assessor who was not called as a witness by the HCPC;
• a copy of the Registrant’s training record;
• relevant Council policies;
• the Registrant’s representations.

24. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In respect of the facts, the Panel understood that the burden of proving each individual fact is on the HCPC and that the HCPC will only be able to prove a particular fact if it satisfies the required standard of proof: namely the civil standard, whereby it is more likely than not that the alleged incident occurred.

25. The Registrant did not attend, but the Panel did not hold his non-attendance against him. It had regard to his response to the internal disciplinary investigation and the statement sent in by him in May 2017, which contained general admissions and set out the context for his actions.

Particular 1
On or around 27 June 2016, you wrote and/or sent a reference to your recruitment agency purporting to be written by Person A when this was not the case.

26. The Panel finds Particular 1 proved.

27. The Panel accepted the evidence of SD when she stated that she had not written or sent the reference to the Recruitment agency. Although the reference contained her signature, she said that she had not provided the reference. She explained to the Panel that when she had received the Registrant’s resignation on 20 June 2016, she had replied the same day by email to accept it, and had signed that email with her electronic signature. She explained that the reference was not in the form of the template for references used by the Council, and the contents of the reference were not, in her view, an accurate reflection of the Registrant’s performance.

28. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s acceptance that he had created the reference himself. He had admitted it to SD in the presence of MA, when SD had challenged the Registrant about the reference on 28 June 2016. This was confirmed by MA who said that the Registrant admitted that he had faked the reference and said words to the effect that ‘he did not know why he had been so stupid’. The Registrant had admitted it in his response to the Council’s internal disciplinary investigation, and in his self referral to the HCPC. He had also admitted it in his written representations to the HCPC.

29. The Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had written the reference purporting to be written by SD and had sent it to the Recruitment agency. The Panel was further satisfied that it was not a reference provided by SD.

Particular 2
Between November 2015 and 31 May 2016, you did not maintain adequate case notes on the Council’s electronic system in respect of one or more of the following Service Users;

30. MA gave evidence that a case note should be created on a service user’s case file each time a contact or event occurs in respect of the service user. She explained that for an assessment visit, she would expect a case note entry to reflect the contact with the service user and any relevant persons in order to arrange the visit; a case note to reflect that the visit had taken place, an assessment form had been completed; and a summary of the visit itself. MA had explained that for the HCPC proceedings she had downloaded the pdf printouts of the case notes and assessment forms relevant to the allegations which had been inputted by the Registrant in respect of each service user. She said that for each assessment form, she had also downloaded the screenshot which showed when each assessment form had been started and completed.

Service User G;

31. The Panel finds Particular 2(a) proved.

32. Service User G was a 29 year old male allocated to the Registrant on 21 December 2015. He had a diagnosis of acute articulatory dyspraxia with associated learning disability. He lived at home with his parents and needed access to support over most of the 24 hour period.

33. In relation to Service User G, MA had located no case notes at all. The Needs Assessment form and accompanying screenshot indicated that an assessment had been conducted on 12 February 2016. In light of this, the Panel was satisfied that there should have been case notes created by the Registrant to indicate who had been asked to attend the assessment visit; how the visit had been arranged and a summary of the outcomes of the assessment. The Panel was, therefore, satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not maintained adequate case notes on Liquid Logic in respect of Service User G.

Service User H;

34. The Panel finds Particular 2(b) proved.

35. Service User H was a 91 year old female who was the carer for her daughter.

36. In relation to Service User H, MA had located no case notes at all. The Needs Assessment form and accompanying screenshot indicated that an assessment had been conducted on 5 February 2016. In light of this the Panel was satisfied that there should have been case notes created by the Registrant of the type identified in Particular 2(a). The Panel was, therefore, satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not maintained adequate case notes on Liquid Logic in respect of Service User H.

Service User K;

37. The Panel finds Particular 2(c) not proved.

38. Service User K was a 68 year old female who, along with her husband, was the carer for her daughter who needed support with finances and emergency issues.

39. In relation to Service User K, MA had located some case notes created by the Registrant. MA had said that they did not contain enough detail of, for example the transport arrangements for Service User K. The screenshot indicated that the Carer’s Assessment form had been completed in January 2016. The Panel had copies of the case notes. There was a case note for 14 December 2015 regarding making the appointment for an assessment. There was a case note for 23 December 2015 of an email sent to Service User K about the assessment which had taken place and providing information details for a referral to support for housing and confirming that the supported employment service had been emailed about the transport issue. There was a further case note for 23 December 2015 to the supported employment service raising the issues identified by the family at the assessment.

40. While MA had said that there was not enough detail in the case notes, she had not identified for the Panel what information was missing. The Panel was of the view that the case notes which existed covered that the appointment had been made, summarised what had occurred and provided information of the Registrant’s subsequent actions. The Panel was not satisfied that the HCPC had proved to the required standard that the case notes were not adequate.

Service User L

41. The Panel finds Particular 2(d) proved.

42. Service User L was a 74 year old male who, along with his wife, was the carer for his daughter. Service User L was the appointed person to deal with all of his daughter’s finances.

43. In relation to Service User L, MA had located no case notes at all. The Carer’s Assessment form and accompanying screenshot indicated that an assessment had been conducted in around January 2016. In light of this the Panel was satisfied that there should have been case notes created by the Registrant of the type identified in Particular 2(a). The Panel was, therefore, satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not maintained adequate case notes on Liquid Logic in respect of Service User L.

Service User M;

44. The Panel finds Particular 2(e) proved.

45. Service User M was a 41 year old man who lived at home with his parents who provided him with support. The referral was made by the family in relation to supported employment for Service User M. The case was allocated to the Registrant on 5 February 2016.

46. In relation to Service User M, MA had located no case notes at all. The Needs Assessment form and accompanying screenshot indicated that an assessment had been conducted in March/April 2016. In light of this the Panel was satisfied that there should have been case notes created by the Registrant of the type identified in Particular 2(a). The Panel was, therefore, satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not maintained adequate case notes on Liquid Logic in respect of Service User M.

Particular 3(a)
47. Service User B was a male around 76 years of age, with various documented health issues. He was a new referral to the Team, not previously having been known to the Council. The referral was received into the Council on 11 January 2016 by Service User B’s brother requesting an assessment of needs with a view to obtaining residential care for Service User B. Service User B had been living at home with his parents, brother and sister-in-law. His mother had died and responsibility for his care had passed to his father, brother and sister-in-law, who were struggling to cope with his needs.

In relation to Service User B:
a. You did not record the service user’s health conditions and/or medical background on the case file;

48. The Panel finds Particular 3(a) not proved.

49. The Panel considered that the ‘case file’ for Service User B included the totality of information on Liquid Logic in relation to the case of Service User B. This would include the case notes and all assessment forms. MA had explained that Liquid Logic had a facility, denoted with a cross icon, to input the health and medical information relating to a service user. The process was to click on the cross icon and input the health and medical information, which would then populate automatically into the various relevant assessment forms. In relation to the Needs Assessment form, the box entitled ‘Health Conditions’ had the words: ‘List is empty’ recorded, indicating that the Registrant had not gone through the process of accessing the cross icon section of Liquid Logic to input the health conditions.

50. However, the Needs Assessment form itself recorded a great deal of information and detailed descriptions about the Registrant’s health conditions. The Panel considered that although the box for health conditions was ‘empty’, the box for the ‘details’ of health was extensively completed, recording that Service User A had a variety of medical conditions.

51. Given that the service user’s case file comprised the Needs Assessment form, the Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not recorded the service user’s health conditions and/or medical background on the case file.

b. You did not record a case note relating to your visit conducted on 18 January 2016 within 72 hours and/or in a timely manner

52. The Panel finds Particular 3(b) proved.

53. The Panel was satisfied that the information within the case file showed that there had been a visit by the Registrant to Service User B on 18 January 2016. The case notes which had been entered by the Registrant were before the Panel. MA explained that the computer generated case notes had the date of the event in the top line, and a date at the end of the case note, which was the date on which the case note entry had been written. The relevant case note indicated that the home visit occurred on 18 January 2016, and the case note entry had been written on 2 March 2016.

54. Having regard to the Council policy that case recording and entries on Liquid Logic should be done contemporaneously wherever possible or within three working days at the latest after each event, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had neither recorded a case note relating to his visit of 18 January 2016 within 72 hours nor in a timely manner.

c. You did not:
i. conduct a second visit to Service User B until March 2016, despite the urgent nature of this referral;

55. The Panel finds Particular 3(c)(i) proved.

56. The Panel was satisfied from the evidence of MA that this was a family ‘in crisis’, which was struggling to cope with caring for Service User B, and so the nature of the referral was urgent. The Panel was satisfied that there had been a very significant change of circumstances for the family and there was an urgent need to identify and manage the risks to Service User B in order to keep him safe. The case file indicated that the second visit had occurred on 4 March 2016.

57. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant did not conduct a second visit until March 2016, despite the urgent nature of the referral.

ii. record an explanation for the delay in conducting the second visit.

58. The Panel finds Particular 3(c)(ii) proved.

59. The Panel had regard to the case notes. It noted that between the two home visits there were case notes for 4 February 2016 in relation to telephone calls with Service User B’s GP surgery, which recorded updates in respect of Service User B’s health. However, there was no record within the case notes as to the reason for the delay for the second visit, nor was there any indication within the Needs Assessment form or Support Plan of the reasons for the delay.

60. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not recorded an explanation for the delay in conducting the second visit.

d. As part of Service User B’s Needs Assessment, you did not discuss and/or record a discussion with Service User B and/or his family regarding the range of care options;

61. The Panel finds Particular 3(d) not proved.

62. MA accepted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had not had discussions about the range of care options with Service User B or his family, but she maintained that there was no record of any such discussions if they had taken place.

63.  The Panel had regard to the case note for the second visit on 4 March 2016, which recorded that the Registrant had met with Service User B with the family present and that the Registrant had ‘talked more about the future’. He had also been told by the family that Service User B had enjoyed a stay at hospital, and Service User B confirmed that he had liked it as the nurses had made a fuss of him and he had enjoyed chatting to other people around him.

64. Within the Needs Assessment itself, the Panel noted that there was a range of care options recorded, including residential care, home support with carers, respite care, support for personal care and provision of equipment, together with observations that his home was no longer a suitable place for him to live as there were no adaptations within the home. In order for such information to be recorded, the Panel inferred that there had been a discussion, and that elements of that discussion had been recorded within the Needs Assessment form.

65. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that, as part of the Needs Assessment, the Registrant had neither discussed nor recorded a discussion with Service User B and his family regarding the range of care options.

e. You did not offer and/or record that you offered a carer’s assessment to Service User B’s family;

66. The Panel finds Particular 3(e) not proved.

67. The Panel had regard to Service User B’s Needs Assessment form. At the box which asked: ‘Would you like a Carer’s Assessment?’ the response was recorded as: ‘My carer was present but does not wish to take up the opportunity of a carer’s assessment at this time’. From this, the Panel inferred that the Registrant had offered a carer’s assessment, but that it had been declined, and this was recorded on the form.

68. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had neither offered nor recorded that he had offered a carer’s assessment to Service User B’s family.

f. As part of Service User B’s Needs Assessment you did not record your consideration of the impact of Service User B’s visual impairment on his potential move to residential care;

69. The Panel finds Particular 3(f) proved.
70. The Panel noted that it had been recorded within the Needs Assessment that Service User B was ‘blind’ and that he had ‘cataracts’. However, the potential impact of this visual impairment on a move away from the family home, a place with which he would be very familiar, to a new place of residential care, was not specifically recorded within the Needs Assessment form.

71. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not recorded his consideration of the impact of Service User B’s visual impairment on a potential move to residential care.

g. You did not record sufficient information about how Service User B would like his needs to be met whilst in residential care within the Needs Assessment and/or support plan;

72. The Panel finds Particular 3(g) not proved.

73. The Panel had regard to both the Needs Assessment form and the Support Plan, and throughout both forms, information about meeting Service User B’s needs was recorded. The Panel noted that there were references to Service User B’s need for routine; how this was met when Service User B was in hospital for long term treatment; how he adapted to the routine of hospital; and how it was considered that he would be able to adapt to a different environment. There was also information about the areas in which Service User B would need  support which at that time was being provided by the family, including: meal times, showering and personal hygiene, access to toilet, clothing, visual impairment, emotional and physical wellbeing, finance, links with family, and peers to talk to.

74. In the Panel’s view there was a significant amount of information about Service User B’s needs which would need to be addressed if not met by the family. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had recorded insufficient information about how Service User B would like his needs to be met whilst in residential care within either the Needs Assessment form or the support plan.

h. You did not obtain Service User B’s consent prior to completing an assessment and/or did not upload a signed consent form to the Council’s electronic system;

75. The Panel finds Particular 3(h) proved insofar as it relates to not uploading a signed consent form.

76. MA had accepted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had not obtained consent before completing an assessment, but maintained that in her interrogation of Liquid Logic, she had been unable to locate a signed consent form. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not uploaded a signed consent form onto the Liquid Logic electronic data base system.

i. You did not send and/or record that you sent copies of the following to Service User B and/or Service User B’s family:
i. Service User B’s Support Plan;
ii. Record of Service User B’s Needs Assessment

77. The Panel finds Particulars 3(i)(i) and 3(i)(ii) proved.

78. MA had accepted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had not sent copies of either the Support Plan or the Needs Assessment form to Service User B and his family. She explained that there was no record within the case file to the effect that copies had been sent, but stated that many Social Workers within her team did not send out such documentation. The Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not recorded that he sent copies of either the Support Plan or the Needs Assessment.

Particular 4
79. Service User P was a 23 year old male in respect of whom a safeguarding referral was made by the housing service following a burglary at Service User P’s home address on 10 February 2016. When the maintenance technician had attended the home address to effect repairs, he was concerned about a large number of young men present at the property.

In relation to Service User P:
a. You copied and pasted information from an assessment completed by a Social Care Coordinator in August 2015 into your assessment of 8 June 2016 and did not make any, or adequate updates to this;

80. The Panel finds Particular 4(a) not proved.

81. MA said that copying and pasting information from previous assessments was acceptable practice, provided that the information was appropriately updated, and out of date, irrelevant information was removed. MA had said that at her supervision session with the Registrant on 26 May 2016, she had made a number of criticisms of the assessment completed relating to Service User P. She accepted that all of the criticisms which she had raised had been addressed in the amended assessment form of 8 June 2018.

82. The Panel had a copy of the 8 June 2016 assessment and considered that it did contain the required and pertinent up to date information. It was not therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not made adequate updates to it.

b. You did not include adequate information regarding safeguarding concerns in your assessment of 8 June 2016;

83. The Panel finds Particular 4(b) not proved for the same reasons as for Particular 4(a).

c. You did not discuss and/or record your discussion with Service User P regarding:
i. hate/mate crime;
ii. changes to living environment;
iii. issues relating to harassment and bullying:
iv. the burglary

84. The Panel finds Particulars 4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iv) not proved.

85. MA accepted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had not had discussions with Service User P about each of the topics listed at Particular 4(c). She maintained that he had not recorded those discussions. The Panel noted that the nature of the Needs Assessment form was in the form of pre-populated questions, with a box in which to record answers. Having gone through the form, the Panel identified that under the section entitled ‘Keeping Safe’, there was a comment added by the Registrant which read: ‘We discussed several aspects of safety both within the home and away from the home…’. Further, under the section entitled ‘Assessor Summary’, the Registrant had recorded that Service User P was a ‘vulnerable young man who has been taken advantage of by people he thought were his friends. [He] has been made aware of hate/mate crime and he states he feels confident in using the telecare in his flat to ensure he can use his property without harassment…[He] has had additional security locks added to his home…’.

86. From the above, the Panel inferred that the Registrant had had discussions on each of the topics with Service User P. Given the nature of information recorded, it was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not recorded those discussions.
d. You did not record your referral of Service User P to the Living Well Team, on the Council’s electronic system in a timely manner;

87. The Panel finds Particular 4(d) not proved.

88. MA indicated that she ‘would not like to say’ that the Registrant’s referral was ‘not timely’. In these circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant’s referral had not been in a timely manner.

e. You did not upload a signed consent form to the Council’s electronic system in a timely manner.

89. The Panel finds Particular 4(e) proved.

90. The Panel had regard to MA’s supervision notes with the Registrant for 12 May 2016. She had recorded that the Registrant needed to upload the signed consent form. The Panel noted that the burglary had occurred in February 2016 and the case notes indicated that the Registrant had carried out home visits to Service User P on 29 February 2016 and 1 March 2016. The signed consent form had not been uploaded by the time of the supervision on 12 May 2016. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not uploaded the signed consent from onto Liquid Logic in a timely manner.

f. You did not complete the Needs Assessment which was started in March 2016, in a timely manner.

91. The Panel had regard to the case notes, for which there was an entry for 10 March 2016, indicating that the Registrant had taken the information for the assessment. The Panel had a copy of the Needs Assessment which was shown as completed and uploaded at 03:49 on 8 June 2016. The Panel noted that a previous version of the assessment had been checked by MA in supervision held on 26 May 2016, following which the Registrant made amendments.

92. Notwithstanding that the assessment had been amended following supervision, the Panel was satisfied that it had not been completed until 8 June 2016. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not completed the Needs Assessment in a timely manner.

Particular 5
You did not consistently complete the section on care and support eligibility in respect of your assessments in relation to:
a. Service User B
b. Service User C
c. Service User D
d. Service User E
e. Service User F
f. Service User K
g. Service User L

93. The Panel found each of Particulars 5(a) to (g) proved.

94. The Panel had been provided with copies for each of the assessments conducted for each of the Service Users listed in Particular 5. It was able to see that for the section entitled ‘Care and Support Eligibility’ for each of the service users, the words: ‘Care and Support Eligibility Record not recorded’. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not completed the care and support eligibility section.

Particular 6
95. MA explained that the Liquid Logic system allowed information which had previously been recorded to be copied forward into a subsequent assessment. This was acceptable practice, provided that the information was appropriately updated to remain relevant and pertinent. In respect of each service user, the Panel had before it a copy of the Registrant’s assessment and a copy of the previous assessment. The Panel compared the information recorded in each assessment. In respect of each service user, it was satisfied that the Registrant had copied forward information from the previous assessment. Further, it was satisfied that there had been, in each case, amendments to the previously recorded information. The Panel therefore addressed the question of whether the amendments adequately updated the previous information copied forward.

96. The Panel noted that MA had explained that not every service user within a caseload was considered ‘active’. Whilst individual cases are constantly open, the cases are not continually active. They remain within the team in case of an emergency or change in circumstances as many of the service users had been with the service for a long time. As a result there may be instances where there was not much information requiring updating. The Panel’s approach therefore was to look for information included within the Registrant’s assessments which was either clearly inappropriate or left in such that by the time of his assessment, it was so outdated that it was potentially misleading, as well as looking for evidence of events which had subsequently occurred but which were not recorded in the Registrant’s assessment.

You copied information from previous assessments into your own assessments and did not make any, or adequate updates to this in respect of:
a. Service User D

97. The Panel finds Particular 6(a) not proved.

98. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was current and relevant. Although MA had said she would have expected to see more information, the Panel did not have evidence before it of any omitted subsequent events which should have been recorded in the Registrant’s assessment. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

b. Service User E

99. The Panel finds Particular 6(b) proved insofar as it relates to ‘not make adequate updates’.

100. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was no longer current or relevant. Although he had updated some information, the copied forward information included the same information about Service User E’s daughter being bullied, without recording that it had occurred in the past. As a result, the Panel considered that the copied forward information was potentially misleading as it may appear that the bullying was still current. The Panel was therefore satisfied to the required standard the updates which had been made were inadequate.

c. Service User F

101. The Panel finds Particular 6(c) not proved.

102. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was current and relevant. There were updates in respect of the service user’s health and social and financial situation. The Panel did not have evidence before it of any specific additional information which should have been recorded in the Registrant’s assessment but had been omitted. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

d. Service User G

103. The Panel finds Particular 6(d) proved insofar as it relates to ‘not make adequate updates’.

104. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that the majority of the Registrant’s assessment comprised the same information from the previous assessment. Although the Registrant had updated information in some areas, the Panel considered that much of the copied forward information was outdated and historical and was no longer relevant.  Consequently, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard the updates which had been made were inadequate.

e. Service User H

105. The Panel finds Particular 6(e) not proved.

106. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was current and relevant. There were updates in respect of the service user’s support provided for personal care, as well as updating the emergency card and carer’s grant. The Panel did not have evidence before it of any specific additional information which should have been reflected in the Registrant’s assessment but which had been omitted. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

f. Service User I

107. The Panel finds Particular 6(f) not proved.

108. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was current and relevant. There were updates in respect of the service user having been identified as having traits of autism, as well as new descriptions of the service user’s needs and a decision on eligibility for services. The Panel did not have evidence before it of any specific additional information which should have been recorded in the Registrant’s assessment but which had been omitted. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

g. Service User J

109. The Panel finds Particular 6(g) not proved.

110. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that there was much information included within the Registrant’s assessment which was current and relevant. The Panel noted that all the information recorded in the ‘outcomes’ section of the Registrant’s assessment was new. The Panel considered that his assessment provided far more information than the original assessment. The Panel did not have evidence before it of any specific additional information which should have been recorded in the Registrant’s assessment but had been omitted. The Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

h. Service User M

111. The Panel finds Particular 6(h) proved insofar as it relates to did ‘not make adequate updates’.

112. Having compared the two assessments, the Panel considered that the majority of the Registrant’s assessment form comprised the same information from the previous assessment. The previous assessment contained information which, in the Panel’s view, put in place a strategy in accordance with the expressed wishes of the service user to find another job and work more hours, in light of his shifts having been reduced, as well as underpinning his needs for assistance in this respect. The Registrant’s assessment had copied forward this information without amendments.

113. The Panel considered that this was an example where the previous assessment set out an strategy for future action, and so there was evidence before the Panel to satisfy it that the previous information needed updating to record what steps, if any, had been taken to carry out the strategy, and what the outcomes had been.  Consequently, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard the updates which had been made were inadequate.

i .Service User O

114. The Panel finds Particular 6(i) not proved.

115. MA, in her oral evidence, did not maintain her criticism of the Registrant copying forward information without adequately updating it. In light of this, the Panel was not satisfied to the required standard either that there had been no updates or that those updates made were inadequate.

Particular 7
In relation to Service User N, following your visit on 18 May 2015, you did not complete the written Needs Assessment and/or record your rationale for not completing it.

116. The Panel finds Particular 7 proved.

117. During its deliberations, the Panel identified that the particular referred to 2015 rather than 2016. It considered that this was simply a typographical error, as the Registrant had not been employed at the Council until November 2015, and all the documentation in Service User N’s case file referred to the visit as occurring on 18 May 2016. Accordingly, the Panel decided to interpret the Particular as if it said 18 May 2016, and did not consider that this would lead to unfairness to the Registrant as all the material pointed to the correct date as being in 2016.

118. The Panel had regard to the case note for the assessment visit on 18 May 2016, in which the Registrant had recorded that he had met with Service User N and her mother ‘to complete the assessment’. The Panel also had regard to the Needs Assessment form itself and noted that it had content and the various boxes had been populated with relevant information obtained in the visit. MA had explained that the criticism of the form was that it was still in draft form  and had not been ‘formalised’ by ticking the relevant box to close it. She explained that it was permissible not to formalise an assessment form once it had been filled in, for example to allow a period of time to try the proposed service, but there was no explanation as to why the Registrant had not formalised it. A Needs Assessment form in draft was not, therefore, complete. MA in her audit on 31 May 2016 had recorded: ‘Incomplete assessment in draft, eligibility completed’.

119. The Panel was satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had not completed the Needs Assessment form, nor had he recorded any reasons for why the form was not completed.

Particular 8
In relation to Service User R:
i. You did not include information regarding how Service User R’s caring role had impacted upon her health and wellbeing in the Impact of Caring Assessment;
ii. You did not include any reference to Service User R’s bereavement and/or how this had affected her in the Impact of Caring Assessment;

120. The Panel finds Particulars 8(a) and 8(b) not proved.

121. It transpired that the version of the Impact of Caring Assessment before the Panel did contain the information itemised at 8(a) and (b), and so the Panel considered that there was no evidence to support that particular.

Particular 9
Your actions described at particular 1 were dishonest.

122. The Panel finds Particular 9 proved.

123. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s admissions that he had forged the reference purported to be provided by SD and that he knew it was wrong. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware that his probationary period had been extended and that he may not be successful in passing his probation. Having had regard to the reference itself, the Panel considered that it would have taken some time for the Registrant to compose the contents, and to cut and paste SD’s electronic signature from a previous email that he had received from her. The Panel considered that there were a number of points before sending the reference to the Recruitment agency at which the Registrant could have stopped what he was doing.

124. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant was having a difficult time coping with the demands of his NQSW role, and that he had immediately admitted what he had done when challenged. However, the Panel considered that by the objective standards of ordinary and decent people, his actions in creating and sending a fabricated reference, which did not accurately reflect his practice at the Council would be considered as dishonest.

Statutory Grounds and Impairment
125. The Panel next considered whether the matters found proved as set out above, amounted to misconduct and/or lack of competence, and if so, whether by reason thereof, the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired.

126. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that any findings of lack of competence and/or misconduct and impairment were matters for the independent judgement of the Panel. The Panel was aware that consideration of impairment only arises in the event that the Panel judges that the facts found proved do amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence and that what has to be determined is current impairment, that is looking forward.

Decision on grounds
Misconduct
127. In relation to Particulars 1 and 9, dishonestly fabricating a reference, it was clear to the Panel this was not a lack of competence issue. However, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions were sufficiently serious as to amount to misconduct. He had knowingly sent a fabricated reference to a Recruitment agency. In the Panel’s judgement, he had done this in order to improve his prospects of obtaining employment.

128. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s failures had breached the following HCPC standards of conduct, performance and ethics 2016:
Standard 9  Be honest and trustworthy

Lack of competence
129. In relation to those facts found proved in Particulars 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the Panel considered whether they amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part. It considered the standards of practice to be expected of a NQSW during the second half of the ASYE. The Panel considered that the Particulars represented a fair sample of the Registrant’s work, in light of the fact that MA had audited the whole of the Registrant’s caseload.

130. In relation to Particular 2, the Panel was of the view that the failure to provide any relevant case notes to evidence contacts or events which had occurred in respect of 4 service users was of a standard which was unacceptably low for a professional at his level. Accurate record keeping is a basic standard to be expected from a Social Worker, even during the ASYE programme. In the Panel’s judgement, this amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

131. In relation to Particulars 3(b), 3(c), 3(f), 3(h) and 3(i), the Panel noted that this related to a single service user, but encompassed a number of failures in the way the Registrant had handled Service User B’s case. Service User B had been a new referral to the Team, which had been allocated by MA to the Registrant to give him the opportunity to put into practise his knowledge and skills in recognising the service user’s needs so as to identify potential service provision, risks and outcomes. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s standard of, and delay in, record keeping, together with his delay in carrying out the second assessment demonstrated a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

132. In relation to Particulars 4(e) and 4(f), the Panel considered that this represented a failure in meeting timelines, which is an important element of social work, particularly in respect of completing assessments. Undue delay has the potential to negatively impact upon the provision of services to service users in need. In the Panel’s judgement this amounted to a standard of practice which was unacceptably low, and amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

133. In relation to Particulars 5(a) to 5(g), the Panel considered that this represented a lack of understanding by the Registrant of the importance of filling in the care and support eligibility sections in his assessments. The omission of such criteria may affect whether a service user is assessed as being entitled to relevant services. In the Panel’s judgement this amounted to a standard of practice which was unacceptably low, and amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

134. In relation to Particulars 6(b), 6(d) and 6(h), the Panel considered that this represented a lack of understanding in the importance of ensuring that copied forward information from previous assessments remains accurate and relevant and is appropriately updated. Although the Registrant appropriately updated some of the copied forward information, in the Panel’s view he was not consistently able to do so. In the Panel’s judgement this amounted to a standard of practice which was unacceptably low, and amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

135. In relation to Particular 7, the Panel considered that this represented a lack of understanding of the importance of ensuring that fully filled in assessment forms were formalised and signed off. In Service User N’s case, MA had said that there had been significant consequences as a result, because the family had considered that the assessment had been completed and so had refused to engage in a reassessment when the case was allocated to another Social Worker. In the Panel’s judgement this amounted to a standard of practice which was unacceptably low, and amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part. HCPC standards of proficiency for social workers  in England 2012:
Standard 10  be able to maintain records appropriately

Decision on impairment
136. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the ‘personal component’ and the ‘public component’.

137. The Panel first considered the ‘personal component’.

138. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s lack of competence was capable of remediation. However, the Panel has no up to date information of whether any remediation has been undertaken by him. It also noted that he had resigned from the Council before his ASYE programme had been completed. The Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated some limited insight in his representations to the HCPC, but he had also sought to explain some of his actions as a consequence of a lack of support and the climate within which he was working. He believed these circumstances impacted on his health which exacerbated his problems. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant did not have the insight to recognise that the extensive scrutiny to which his practice was subjected was a supportive mechanism designed to assist him to improve.

139. In relation to the misconduct, and in particular the dishonesty, the Panel had no information before it that the Registrant had reflected on this beyond his acceptance that he recognised it was wrong and that he was ashamed of his actions. He wrote that he took “full responsibility” for his “stupid action” which he said was done “in a moment of madness and desperation”. The Panel had no evidence that the Registrant had thought about what steps he would take to ensure that he did not repeat his dishonesty.

140. In all the circumstances, the Panel was of the view that there remained a risk of repetition of both the Registrant’s dishonesty and his failures in respect of his practice. It therefore concluded that in respect of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

141. The Panel went on to consider the ‘public component’.

142. The Panel was of the view that members of the public would be appalled if no action was to be taken in respect of a Registrant in a responsible position who had acted dishonestly in fabricating a reference with a view to obtaining employment. It also considered that the public interest included the collective need to protect service users, and a Registrant who had not demonstrated remediation of his lack of competence would undermine public confidence in the profession.

143. The Panel, therefore, concluded that public confidence in the reputation of the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this particular case. Similarly, the Panel concluded that professional standards would be undermined if it did not make a finding of Impairment.

144. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the ‘public component’.

Decision on sanction
145. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct and lack of competence, the Panel next went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on his registration by way of the imposition of a sanction.

146. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and exercised its independent judgement. The Panel had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the wider public interest, which includes upholding standards within the profession, together with maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.

147. The Panel first identified what it considered to be the principal mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.


148. Mitigating factors:
• The Registrant was an NQSW on his ASYE programme;

• The Registrant expressed regret and remorse for his actions, and acknowledged that his performance deteriorated from January 2016;

• The Registrant admitted his dishonesty at an early stage, and self referred to the HCPC. In his representations to the HCPC he said : ‘I am thoroughly ashamed of my actions by submitting my own reference; I deeply regret my actions for letting down my profession, family and former employers’;

• The Registrant worked in a team getting accustomed to a new computer system, which had not been fully embedded at the Council, and MA had said that Liquid Logic was not an easy system to use and it could take months for Social Workers to learn how to use it fully;

• The Registrant arrived at the Council at a time of significant cultural shift as a result of the implementation of the 2015 Care Act, and where all members of the team were learning to adapt, which may have affected access to experienced members from whom the Registrant could seek advice;

• The Registrant perceived that he did not have a good relationship with his Line Manager, which may have inhibited him in seeking support from her;

• There was a significant period of around three months, between February 2016 and April 2016, when the Registrant’s supervision sessions with MA did not take place;

• The Registrant had moved from Children’s Services at a different Local Authority into Adult Services, which MA acknowledged would have been a steep learning curve for him, and a significant change in his working practices and expectations;

• The Registrant’s health issues at the time and his subsequent attempts to address them.

149. Aggravating factors:
• The Registrant‘s dishonesty comprised a number of actions, namely composing the contents of the fabricated reference, cutting and pasting the Team Manager’s electronic signature into it, and sending it to a Recruitment agency. There were a number of opportunities for him to pause and reflect and withdraw from continuing;

• The Registrant’s practice failings spanned twelve service users over a period of around 7 months;

• There is little evidence of remediation, particularly in respect of record keeping;

• The Registrant’s practice failings led to a potential delay in the provision of services for service users;

• In respect of Service User N, there were potential consequences following the Registrant’s failings, because the family refused to engage with a reassessment when a new Social Worker was allocated.

150. The Panel considered the sanctions available, beginning with the least restrictive. The Panel did not consider that the options of taking no further action, mediation, or the sanction of a Caution Order to be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of this case. None of these options would provide the necessary levels of public protection, given the risk of repetition which the Panel has previously identified, nor would they reflect the seriousness of the case which includes dishonesty. 

151. The Panel moved on to consider the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Policy indicates that this sanction may be appropriate where the issues are capable of correction and there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the Registrant from doing so. In this case, the Panel has already indicated that it is of the view that remediation of the Registrant’s failures is possible. If the only matters before the Panel were in relation to the lack of competence, conditions may have been appropriate. However, given the misconduct, which includes dishonesty, the Panel considered that the case was too serious for a Conditions of Practice Order at this time.

152. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order and concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, both to protect the public and to meet the wider public interest. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be protected for the period of time for which the Suspension Order was in place. In respect of addressing the public interest, the Panel considered that the public would understand that a NQSW was being given the chance to demonstrate that he could remediate his practice to become a safe and effective professional. The Panel also considered that such an Order is required to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold professional standards.

153. The Panel considered that the length of the Order should be for 12 months. This is with a view to the Registrant demonstrating to the next Panel that he has reflected on his failures and has developed sufficient insight into them. The Panel also considered that public confidence in the profession would be damaged if any lesser period were imposed.

154. The Panel acknowledged that the Policy lists dishonesty as the type of case in which a Striking Off Order may be appropriate. However, in the context of this case, the Panel had regard to the fact that that the dishonesty was in the context of the Registrant making poor decisions when struggling to meet the challenging requirements of his post as an NQSW during his ASYE. The dishonesty, while serious, was not at the most serious end of the scale, and the Registrant had promptly admitted it and expressed remorse. In light of this and given that the Panel has found that the  failings are remediable, the Panel is of the view that a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate at this time.

155. This Panel does not seek to fetter the discretion of a future reviewing Panel, but it considers that such a Panel may be assisted by the participation of the Registrant at any review, either in person or by telephone or by providing written representations, so that he may be able to demonstrate evidence of developing insight and remediation. Such evidence might also include:

i. a reflective piece demonstrating his learning from his actions and his failures,
ii. evidence of his understanding of the impact his behaviour may have had on service users and on public confidence in the profession;
iii. consideration of how he would avoid a repetition in the future of his dishonesty;
iv. evidence of remediation, for example, courses undertaken, texts and internet materials accessed and the learning achieved;
v. any relevant up to date information regarding his health;
vi. the provision of references from any employer and/ or any voluntary work.

156. The Panel acknowledged that such an Order may have an adverse impact upon the Registrant. However, the Panel determined that the interests of protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the profession outweigh the interests of the Registrant.

Order

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Alexander W Dominy for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Alexander W Dominy

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status