Dr Simon Redpath

Profession: Practitioner psychologist

Registration Number: PYL26188

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 05/10/2018 End: 16:00 05/10/2018

Location: Jurys Inn Cardiff, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3UD

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Conditions of Practice

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

(The following allegation was found proved by a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee in the course of the substantive hearing that concluded on 19 October 2017)

During the course of your employment as a Psychologist at Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board you:

1. In respect of Patient A;

 

a) not proven

 

b) did not appropriately assess mental capacity

 

c) did not recognise and/or address the risks posed within the discharge plan

 

d) did not work collaboratively and/or take colleague opinion into consideration

 

e) not proven

 

f) demonstrated inconsistent clinical reasoning in respect of the patient's capacity and/or discharge

 

g) undertook inappropriate and/or indiscriminate testing

 

h) did not interpret test results correctly

 

i) not proven

 

2. In respect of Patient B;

 

a) did not maintain appropriate and/or professional boundaries

 

b) not proved

 

c) did not appropriately assess mental capacity

 

d) did not work collaboratively and/or take colleague

expert opinion into consideration

 

e) not proven

 

f) not proven

 

g) undertook inappropriate and/or indiscriminate testing

 

h) provided inaccurate list of test results

 

i) not proven

 

3. In respect of Patient C;

 

a) not proven

 

b) not proven

 

4. In respect of Patient D;

 

a) did not work collaboratively and/or take colleague

expert opinion into consideration

 

b) not proven

 

5. not proven

 

6. not proven

 

7. not proven

 

8. In respect of Patient H, did not work collaboratively and/or take colleague expert opinion into consideration

 

9. Discontinued

 

10. Discontinued

11. In respect of Patient K;

 

a) not proven

 

b) undertook inappropriate and/or indiscriminate testing

 

c) misinterpreted test results

 

12. In respect of Patient L;

 

a) did not maintain accurate and/or appropriate records

 

b) undertook inappropriate testing

 

13. As identified in an audit during May 2012;

 

a) In 8 out of 12 cases you did not enter clear and/or

comprehensible records within the medical notes

 

b) not proven

 

14. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 13 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.

 

15. By reason of that misconduct [not found] and/or lack of competence [found] your fitness to practise is

impaired [found].

 

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Hearing in Private

1. Ms Wills, on behalf of the HCPC, informed the Panel that parts of the hearing might involve reference to matters concerning the Registrant’s health and private family matters. Accordingly, she requested that such parts of the hearing be held in private. The Registrant supported the application. The Panel received and accepted advice from the `Legal Assessor in relation to the application of Rule 10 (1) (a) of the Conduct and Competence Procedure Rules 2003. The Panel was satisfied that, for the protection of the private life of the Registrant, the public should be excluded from those parts of the hearing in which his health was discussed.

Background

2. The Registrant is a registered Practitioner Psychologist. At the time relevant to the allegations, he was employed as a Specialist Clinical Neuropsychologist working at Band 8a in the Neuro Rehabilitation Unit at Neath Port Talbot Hospital. In November 2011 a new line manager took responsibility for the Registrant and became aware of complaints that had been made about the Registrant. In early February 2012 the Registrant commenced a period of sick leave. This was followed in April 2012 by a period of suspension. The Registrant never returned to his post and was referred to the HCPC, culminating in his appearance before the final hearing panel. After that panel announced its findings on facts, the Presenting Officer submitted that it was not the HCPC’s case that the Registrant had wilfully disregarded the welfare of his patients; he submitted that the facts found proved suggested that a finding of lack of competence was appropriate, rather than one of misconduct.

3. In relation to the matters found proved, the final hearing panel identified the following areas in which the Registrant’s practice had been deficient:                                                                                                 

• Assessments of mental capacity and discharge;    
• Collaborative working;   
• Communication;  
• Testing;   
• Record keeping; 
• Boundaries.

4. The final hearing panel concluded the deficiencies in each area of practice, except boundaries and communication, had amounted to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part. In relation to boundaries, the panel viewed the issue concerned as an error of judgement made on the spur of the moment in unusual circumstances, which did not need to be considered further in relation to either misconduct or lack of competence. In relation to communication, the panel found that the failings concerned did not meet the threshold of misconduct.

5. The final hearing panel accepted that the Registrant had reflected on his conduct and on the panel’s reasons for its findings, and that he was regretful and embarrassed. In relation to the panel’s findings in relation to the competence issues set out above, the panel concluded that the Registrant’s identified shortcomings were capable of being remedied and that he was willing and able to remedy them. It noted that he had fully engaged with the HCPC regulatory process and had not only stated that he accepted the panel’s findings, but also that he had a desire to address those matters. The panel accepted that the Registrant had started to develop insight into his lack of competence. However, it considered that there was a difference between the commencement of the development of insight and the conclusion of that process.

6. The panel concluded that work undertaken by the Registrant as a Practitioner Psychologist had been limited since he had last worked at Neath Port Talbot Hospital in February 2012. As a consequence, the panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had remedied the shortcomings identified in the panel’s findings. For this reason, the panel concluded that there remained a risk of repetition and that a finding of impairment of fitness to practice was required on the personal component relevant to that issue.

7. The panel was also satisfied that a fully informed and fair minded member of the public would expect that the Registrant would not be permitted to practise without restriction until the shortcomings set out above had been satisfactorily addressed. For this reason, the panel concluded that a finding of impairment of fitness to practice was required on the personal component relevant to impairment.

8. Having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by reason of his lack of competence the panel went on to consider what if any action it should take. Given the ability and willingness of the Registrant to remedy his lack of competence and his desire to return to practice, the panel concluded that at that time a suspension order would be a disproportionate outcome. Further, the panel noted that a practical consequence of the imposition of a suspension order would be that the Registrant would be prevented from demonstrating remediation of the shortcoming it had identified.

9. In all the circumstances, the panel concluded that a 12 month Conditions of Practice Order was required. It was satisfied that the appointment of an appropriately qualified supervisor, together with the work the Registrant would be required to undertake in conjunction with that supervisor towards addressing the deficiencies identified by the panel, would afford the necessary and sufficient level of monitoring to achieve protection of the public and to maintain public confidence.

10. The panel made clear that in requiring the Registrant to address certain areas of practice by way of a Personal Development Plan, it had confined the conditions to those areas that were relevant to its finding of current impairment. Any wider issues of de-skilling arising from the fact that the Registrant had been away from full time practice for some time would be covered by the general obligations binding on all HCPC registrants relating to returning to practice requirements.

11. This reviewing Panel heard submissions from Ms Wills on behalf of the HCPC and representations from the Registrant. It was provided with a bundle of documents from the HCPC which included the decision and order of the final hearing panel on 19 October 2017. It was also provided with a bundle of documents from the Registrant. This included:   

• A series of emails between the Registrant and prospective employers;
• Neuropsychological reports completed by the Registrant in March 2012, November 2012 and June 2014.

HCPC Submissions

12. Ms Wills, on behalf of the HCPC, informed the Panel that, by agreement, she wished to put forward joint submissions on behalf of both parties. She noted that, despite his best efforts, the Registrant had so far been unable to obtain work as a Practitioner Psychologist. He had undertaken reviews of some of his previous work in an effort to increase his insight into the failings found by the final hearing panel and to inform his future practice, but his progress had not been evidenced by a supervisor.

13. Ms Wills informed the Panel that the parties were agreed that in these circumstances it was clear that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of his lack of competence. She said that, as a result of discussions between the parties before the start of the hearing, it was clear that the Registrant had focussed his efforts on obtaining employment but now appreciated that compliance with his Conditions of Practice Order was not contingent on the securing of employment.                                                                                          

14. Ms Wills submitted that the joint application of the parties was that the current Conditions of Practice Order be amended to place the focus on the Registrant’s interactions with a supervisor rather than on the obtaining of further employment.  She said the parties were agreed that an extension of 12  months would be appropriate, given that it would be open to the Registrant to apply for an early review if he achieved compliance with the conditions earlier.

Registrant’s Representations

15. The Registrant agreed with the application made by Ms Wills.                              

Decision

16. In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken account of all the evidence put before it, together with the submissions of Ms Wills and the representations of the Registrant. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

17. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise continues to be impaired by reason of his lack of competence. To that end, it asked itself what had changed since the final hearing which might enable it to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired. Given the fact that the Registrant has yet to comply with his Conditions of Practice Order, it concluded that his fitness to practise remains impaired.

18. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant remains committed to remedying his lack of competence and that, for the same reasons set out by the final hearing panel, a Conditions of Practice Order remains the appropriate and proportionate sanction at this time.

19. The Panel accepted the joint submissions of the parties and concluded that the current order should be maintained and extended with minor alterations for a further period of 12 months with effect from the end of 16 November 2018 in accordance with Article 30 (1) (a) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001

Order

Order: The Registrar is directed to vary the Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Dr Simon Redpath for a further period of 12 months upon the expiry of the existing Order, the Conditions are:

1. You must place yourself under the supervision of a supervisor registered by the HCPC as a Practitioner Psychologist, and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of their engagement. In selecting a supervisor you should ensure he or she is prepared to provide the reports required by these conditions.
2. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:

• Mental Capacity Act assessments
• Selection of appropriate assessment tools.
• Collaboration with other professionals.
• Record keeping.

Such development plan may include, but is not restricted to, training courses in areas such as record keeping, multidisciplinary working and Mental Capacity Act assessments; review of case studies and reflections on relevant case studies; practical exercises around the selection of appropriate assessment tools

3. Within 2 months of the appointment of your supervisor you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

4. You must discuss with your supervisor your progress towards addressing the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan on a monthly basis. These discussions may, but need not, take place in face-to-face meetings.

5. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6. You must request your supervisor to provide a report detailing your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan:

a. within six months of the appointment of that supervisor, and send that report to the HCPC at that stage;

b. not less than 28 days before the date of the review of this Order, an up-to-date report.

7. Within 14 days of taking up any employment for which your HCPC registration is required, you must inform the HCPC of the details of the employment you have taken up or work you are prepared to undertake.

8. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer or complaints made about your professional practice.

9. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

a. any organisation or person employing you or contracting with you (including individual clients you see on a private basis) to undertake professional work;

b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and,

c. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

10. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

11. Any condition requiring you to provide any information to the HCPC is to be met by you sending the information to the offices of the HCPC, marked for the attention of the Director of Fitness to Practise or Head of Case Management.

Notes

The Order imposed today will apply from 16 November 2018

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 16 November 2019

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Dr Simon Redpath

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
05/10/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Conditions of Practice
18/10/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice
17/07/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Hearing has not yet been held