Mr Ian R Lawson

Profession: Chiropodist / podiatrist

Registration Number: CH09900

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 12/08/2019 End: 17:00 15/08/2019

Location: Novotel Glasgow Centre Hotel - 181 Pitt Street - Glasgow - G2 4DT

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

Whilst registered as a Podiatrist and during the course of your employment
with NHS Ayrshire and Arran, you:

1) On or around 16 June 2015, selected the wrong toe of Patient
B for surgery.

2) On or around 15 December 2015, anaesthetised the wrong toe
of Patient C.

3) On or around 8 December 2015, in the case of Patient D:

a. Anaesthetised the wrong toe of Patient D;

b. Made inappropriate comments towards Patient D;

c. Failed to adequately document the procedure;

d. Failed to gain consent for the procedure;

e. Failed to report the incident through the correct reporting
procedures.

4) The matters set out in paragraphs 1 – 3 constitute misconduct
and/ or lack of competence.

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

Finding

Preliminary Matters

1. The Registrant was present and represented by Mr Briggs of Thompsons Solicitors. The case for the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) was presented by Ms Georgia Luscombe of Kingsley Napley, Solicitors.
 
Application to Hear Part of the case in Private

2. Mr Briggs on behalf of the Registrant made an application for the hearing to be conducted partly in private due to health matters relating to the Registrant. Ms Luscombe on behalf of the HCPC consented.

3. In considering the application, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided that it was necessary to hold this hearing partly in private, to protect the private life of the Registrant, which the Panel considered outweighed the public interest in conducting this hearing wholly in public.

Application to amend

4. At the outset of the hearing Ms Luscombe, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application to make the following amendments:

i. To delete Particular 3)b

ii. To amend Particular 3)c replacing “adequately” with the word “correctly”.

iii. To amend Particular 3)d by  adding the words “updated written” before “consent” and at the end of the particular, adding the words “following the error at 3)a;”.

5. Ms Luscombe submitted that the proposed amendments would assist both parties as they better particularised the HCPC’s case. Mr Briggs did not oppose the application.

6. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been put on notice of the proposed amendments in a letter dated 22 May 2019. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to amend the Allegation as proposed because it more accurately reflected the HCPC’s case and there were no objections on behalf of the Registrant.

7. In view of the deletion of particular 3)b the Allegation was renumbered so that Particulars 3)c, 3)d and 3)e  became 3)b, 3)c  and 3)d respectively of the amended Allegation.

Admissions

8. The Registrant admitted the facts of the Particulars 1), 2), 3)a, 3)b, 3)c and 3)d  of the amended Allegation and accepted  Particular 4  in relation to a lack of competence but not in relation to misconduct.

Background

9. The Registrant has been employed as a Podiatrist by NHS Ayrshire and Arran since 1987. All of these allegations relate to 2015, when the Registrant was undertaking nail surgery. The Registrant was subsequently diagnosed with a health condition for which he attended Occupational Health. He experienced a period of sick leave and returned to practise as a Podiatrist with reasonable adjustments in place.

10. The first incident arose from a procedure on 16 June 2015 involving Patient B. MH was the Podiatry Assistant on that occasion. Patient B attended the Registrant to have her right second nail removed.  Immediately prior to surgery, the Registrant selected the wrong toe.

11. The second incident arose from a procedure on 8 December 2015 involving Patient D. Patient D was due to have her left first and left third toenails removed. However Patient D reported that in fact the Registrant anaesthetised her left second instead of third toe. The Particular concerns the Registrant’s removal of the nail from the left second toe. It is further alleged that the Registrant changed the paperwork after the procedure, including the consent form, without asking Patient D to re-sign it. Furthermore, the Registrant failed to report the incident.

12. On 15 December 2015 Patient C was to have her right first toenail removed; this was confirmed on the referral paperwork from her GP which referred to the “right great toenail”. However on the day of the procedure, Patient C referred to her “wee toenail” and the Registrant injected her right fifth toe.

Decision on Facts

13. The Panel heard live evidence from three witnesses on behalf of the HCPC: RA, the Registrant’s Podiatry Service Manager and the investigating Officer, MH a Podiatry Assistant who worked with the Registrant and GD, a Podiatry Assistant who worked with the Registrant. The Panel also heard evidence from the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. RA adopted her written statement as her evidence, having identified some minor corrections. The Panel found RA, to be a credible, reliable and balanced witness. She is an experienced podiatrist and is employed as a Podiatry Service Manger by NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the area in which the Registrant is working. She stated that she has over 30 years’ experience in podiatry.  She is responsible for ensuring governance and continuous improvement in all areas.  RA was also responsible for carrying out the investigations into each Particular of the Allegation.

15. Her oral evidence was consistent with her written statement and the information provided in the HCPC referral.  RA conceded where she did not know the answers to questions asked or where there were parts of her evidence that she could not recall. The Panel accepted her recollection of what she had been told by patients in relation to treatment carried out by the Registrant.

16. MH was formerly a Podiatry Assistant at NHS Ayrshire and Arran. She adopted her written statement as her evidence. She worked with the Registrant on many occasions and she gave evidence in respect of Particulars 1 and 2 concerning Patient B and Patient C, when she attended as the Podiatry Assistant. The Panel found her to be a credible and reliable witness. Although the witness appeared to be anxious having to attend the hearing and give evidence, in an unfamiliar setting, she provided her evidence in a straightforward manner. MH conceded where she did not know the answers to questions asked or where there were parts of her evidence that she could not recall.

17. GD is a Podiatry Assistant in the Enablement Pathway Team at NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the area in which the Registrant is currently working. She adopted her written statement as her evidence. She assisted the Registrant about twice a month in nail surgery clinics. She gave evidence in respect of Particular 3 concerning Patient D.

18. The Panel found GD to be a credible and reliable witness and answered questions in a straightforward manner. She was measured and made it clear where she did not know the answers to questions asked or where there were parts of her evidence that she could not recall.

19. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be mainly credible. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant sought to give the Panel an accurate account. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s recollection was always accurate. The Panel noted that whilst in some instances the Registrant had a detailed recollection, at other points his recollection had changed over time.  In particular:

• In relation to Patient B, the Registrant admitted to marked inconsistencies between his original written statement made shortly after the incident on 16 June 2015 and his current recollection.

• In relation to Patient D, the Registrant had not recalled her during the internal investigation but now seemed to have a good recollection.

However, the Panel found the Registrant, at times, sought to apportion blame to third parties even where the evidence did not support that.

20. Where there was a difference in evidence the Panel preferred the evidence of RA, MH and GD.

Particular 1

21. The Registrant admitted the facts of this Particular relating to his treatment of Patient B on 16 June 2015. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he accepted he had mistakenly identified the wrong toe for treatment when he pulled it through the drape and touched it with an elevator instrument. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who had investigated this incident and MH who had been the Podiatry Assistant in attendance for the nail surgery on Patient B. MH confirmed that the wrong toe was selected and she gave evidence that the patient appeared to let out a cry of pain in reaction to the Registrant commencing treatment.

22. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, MH and the supporting documentation.

Particular 2

23. The Registrant admitted the facts of this Particular relating to his treatment of Patient C on 15 December 2015. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he accepted he had anaesthetised the wrong toe of Patient C. The Registrant sought to apportion blame as to Patient C referring to her toe as her “wee toe”. The Panel noted that the Registrant, himself, had completed the initial assessment for treatment and the paperwork referred to the “right first” toe for nail avulsion. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who had investigated this incident and MH who had been the Podiatry Assistant in attendance for the nail surgery on Patient C. MH confirmed that the wrong toe was anaesthetised and she gave evidence that the patient had consistently pointed to and identified her “right first” toe albeit referring to it as her “wee toe”.

24. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, MH and the supporting documentation.

Particular 3a)

25. The Registrant admitted the facts of this Particular relating to his treatment of Patient D on 8 December 2015. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he accepted that he had anaesthetised the wrong toe of Patient D and it was an unintentional mistake. The Registrant accepted he had originally sought to apportion some blame for what he had done to the time pressure at the appointment. He stated that this resulted from this appointment being a direct referral from a private podiatrist and there were time pressures to assimilate all the paperwork as well as carry out the treatment in the one appointment. The Registrant had also considered at first that it was acceptable to carry out treatment on toes 1 and 2 instead of toes 1 and 3. The Registrant had now reflected and accepted his responsibility for the error. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who had spoken to Patient D and investigated this incident.  GD who had been the Podiatry Assistant in attendance for the nail surgery on Patient D confirmed that the Registrant anaesthetised the wrong toe.

26. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, GD and the supporting documentation including Patient D’s letter.

Particular 3b)

27. The Registrant admitted that he failed to correctly document the procedure relating to his treatment of Patient D on 8 December 2015. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he accepted that he failed to correctly document the procedure relating to his treatment of Patient D. The Registrant accepted that he should have completed the appropriate paperwork and have that signed by the patient once he had obtained her consent to undertake nail surgery on toe 2 instead of toe 3. The Registrant accepted he had originally sought to attribute blame for what he had done to the time pressure at the appointment. The Registrant had also considered at first that it was acceptable to carry out treatment on toes 1 and 2 instead of toes 1 and 3 because the patient was in any event due to have all her toenails removed. The Registrant had now reflected and accepted his responsibility for his error. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who had investigated this incident and spoken to the patient and GD who had been the Podiatry Assistant in attendance for the nail surgery on Patient D. GD confirmed that the Registrant did not appear to have completed fresh paperwork after the planned treatment changed but stated he may have changed the paperwork after he realised his mistake.

28. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, GD and the supporting documentation.

Particular 3c)

29. The Registrant admitted that he failed to gain updated written consent for the procedure following the error at 3a relating to his treatment of Patient D on 8 December 2015. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he should have obtained Patient D’s updated written consent to undertake nail surgery on toe 2 instead of toe 3. The Registrant originally sought to attribute blame for what he had done to the time pressure at the appointment. The Registrant had also considered at first that it was acceptable to carry out treatment on toes 1 and 2 instead of toes 1 and 3, given that the patient was due to have nail surgery on all her toes. The Registrant had now reflected and accepted that where the treatment changed from what he had obtained consent for he did require to obtain updated written consent. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who had investigated this incident and spoken to the patient as well as GD who had been the Podiatry Assistant in attendance for the nail surgery on Patient D. GD confirmed that the Registrant had not obtained updated written consent but had obtained verbal consent from the patient who was asked to consent at a time the patient had just been made aware of the mistake.

30. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, GD and the supporting documentation.

Particular 3d)

31. The Registrant admitted that he failed to report the incident through the correct reporting procedures, the Datix reporting system. The Panel considered the evidence of the Registrant that he had failed to report the incident through the correct reporting procedures. The Registrant originally sought to attribute blame for this failure to a lack of training in the Datix system reporting procedures.

32. The Panel noted however that the Registrant had attended training on 15 December 2015 and, had he been unaware on 8 December 2015 of the procedure, he had not submitted a Datix report retrospectively in respect of this incident.

33. The Panel also took account of the evidence of RA who provided information on the correct reporting procedure and the training that the Registrant had received on Datix. GD, the Podiatry Assistant, confirmed she was not aware of any report being made of the incident which is supported by the evidence of RA.

34. The Panel finds the facts of this particular proved, having accepted the Registrant’s admission which is supported by the evidence of RA, GD and the supporting documentation.

Decision on Grounds

35. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s actions in Particulars 1), 2), 3)a, 3)b, 3)c and 3)d   amount to a lack of competence and/or misconduct. The Panel is aware that this is a matter for its professional judgement. In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered the submissions of Ms Luscombe on behalf of the HCPC and the submissions of Mr Briggs on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel has also had regard to the advice of the Legal Assessor.

36. In considering whether the facts proved amount to a lack of competence, the Panel has noted that the facts found proved relate to only three patients and nail surgery procedures and do not represent a fair sample of the Registrant’s work. During June 2015 to December 2015 the Registrant was performing nail surgery, on average, at least, one day per week on up to six patients each day. This meant that a substantial number of patients were receiving treatment. The Panel is aware that the Registrant is a very experienced practitioner, having qualified as a Podiatrist in 1987.  The Panel therefore finds that he had the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to carry out his role. In these circumstances the Panel is of the view that the facts found proved do not amount to a lack of competence.

37. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s actions in Particulars 1), 2), 3)a, 3)b, 3)c and 3)d amount to misconduct. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s conduct in the Particulars found proved breached the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics :-

• 1 – You must act in the best interests of service users.

• 7 – You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners.
• 9 – You must get informed consent to provide care or services (so far as possible).

• 10 – You must keep accurate records.

• 12 – You must limit your work or stop practising if your performance or judgement is affected by your health.

38. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s conduct in the Particulars found proved breached the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Chiropodist/Podiatrist:

• 2 - Be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession (specifically)

o 2.1 - Understand the need to act in the best interests of service users

o 2.6 – Understand the importance of and be able to obtain informed consent

• 3 - Be able to maintain the fitness to practices (specifically)

o 3.2 - Understand the importance of maintaining their own health

• 10 – Be able to maintain records appropriately (all parts)

• 15 - Understand the need to establish and maintain a safe
practice environment (specifically)

o 15.2 - Be aware of applicable health and safety legislation, and any relevant safety policies and procedures in force at the workplace, such as incident reporting and be able to act in accordance with these

39. The Panel has found that the Registrant has in the course of treatment, failed to provide the correct treatment to three patients including anaesthetising the incorrect toe on two occasions, providing treatment without written consent and has failed to implement the required reporting procedures when an incident occurred. The Panel has also heard evidence from RA that she has never seen the mistake of treating the wrong toe in nail surgery in over 30 years of practice. The Registrant’s conduct in these circumstances was serious and fell well below the standards expected of a registered Podiatrist. Taking all of these matters into account, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in particulars 1), 2), 3)a, 3)b, 3)c and 3)d amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

40. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired by that misconduct. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered both the personal component and the public component. In addition, the Panel has considered the submissions of Ms Luscombe on behalf of the HCPC, the submissions of Mr Briggs on behalf of the Registrant and has also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding Fitness to Practice is Impaired. In addition, the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

41. In terms of the personal component, the Panel is of the view that in principle, the Registrant’s failings are remediable and there are steps which could be taken which would significantly reduce the risks resulting from his treatment. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that he has been unable to access the nail surgery training provided by his employer and so he would not be immediately ready to perform nail surgery in his practice, although he is keen to recommence as soon as he is competent to so do. The Panel has heard evidence of the steps the Registrant has taken on his own initiative although he admitted feeling demotivated in this regard. The Panel noted the Registrant has additionally now undertaken the “shadowing” of a recently qualified Podiatrist to improve and update his knowledge of the current requirements for record keeping. The Registrant acknowledged that this has developed his knowledge and he has changed his practice accordingly.  However the Panel has not had sight of any documents to support this evidence. In addition the Panel is of the view that the Registrant has failed to fully reflect upon the cause of his repeated treatment of the wrong toe for anaesthetic/nail ablation surgery. The Registrant failed to gain updated written consent for the procedure on a patient’s toe and failed to report it. The Panel has heard evidence that the Registrant did not comply with the Datix system incident and “near miss” reporting procedures as required, or seek management advice.  This attitude is of concern to the Panel in circumstances where RA, a Registrant of over 30 years’ experience confirmed she had not experienced another case of the incorrect toe being treated.  In the absence of such steps to remediate his conduct, the Panel has concluded that there is still a risk of repetition.

42. The Panel has also considered the question of insight. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant has demonstrated limited insight into his failings.  He has not taken full personal responsibility for his actions and appears still to be focussed on the deficiencies in the training provided and the lack of support provided to him by management. The Registrant made much reference to not being allowed by his management to use a “marker” (pen) to identify the correct toe and to minimise the risk of treating the incorrect toe. However, the Panel noted that in relation to the application of the antiseptic Betadene swab, on a toe, pre-surgery, the Registrant was prepared to follow his own judgment in the generous application of Betadene even where that differed from the procedure set down by management. Taking this into account the Panel did not accept the Registrant’s evidence that he was not allowed to use a “marker” (pen). The Panel considered this demonstrated the Registrant’s tendency still to apportion blame to patients and/or colleagues rather than to fully accept responsibility for his actions. The Registrant also minimised the possible effects of his actions and has only recently accepted the potential for harm resulting from his actions.

43. This limited insight also leads the Panel to conclude that there is a risk of repetition.

44. The Panel accepts that the Registrant has demonstrated some remorse, although not accepting full responsibility for his actions.

45. The Panel has also considered the critically important public policy issues which include the collective need to maintain public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process, the protection of service users and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour.  The Panel’s findings in respect of the Allegation found proved and amounting to misconduct raises concerns as the Registrant’s actions had the potential to result in actual patient harm and his failings have not been remedied. The Panel is therefore concerned that there is an issue of public protection and potential for patient harm.

46. The Panel is also of the view that the Registrant’s misconduct would impact on public confidence in the profession. The Panel has found that the Registrant’s failures had the potential to cause actual harm to patients. Two of the patients did complain about the treatment received, with one adding a post on the same day as her treatment on “Facebook” regarding the “bad experience” she had with the Registrant. The Registrant failed to follow correct procedures relating to reporting of incidents, record keeping, documentation and obtaining updated written consent. The Registrant sought to downplay the seriousness of his actions and the consequences for the patients and the colleagues who assisted him with his work. The failure to follow reporting procedures created a risk of repetition of incidents. Correct reporting and alerting management would have provided colleagues and management perhaps an opportunity to identify and avoid the risk of repetition of these incidents. Specifically, the incident on 15 December 2015 might have been avoided had he reported the incident of 8 December 2015.
 
47. The Registrant failed to both obtain updated written consent for treatment and to properly document the procedure. One of these events occurred on the afternoon following an in-house training session on nail surgery. The Panel has noted that when asked about the impact of his actions on the profession, the Registrant failed to acknowledge the level of the negative reputational consequences arising from his actions. The Panel has concluded that there is a serious risk of an adverse impact on public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process, if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances.

48. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired by his misconduct in terms of both the personal component and the public component.

Decision on Sanction 

49. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Luscombe on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Briggs on behalf of the Registrant on the issue of sanction. The Panel has considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity, had regard to the Sanctions Policy and considered the advice of the Legal Assessor.

50. The Panel is aware that the function of fitness to practise panels is not punitive and that the primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk the Registrant may pose to those using or needing his services in the future. In reaching its decision, the Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest considerations, which include the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

51. The Panel has also considered the mitigating and aggravating factors. The aggravating factors are the risk of  potential harm to patients; repeated failures in clinical care, the Registrant has demonstrated limited insight; there were three incidents involving three separate patients, there is a lack of full remediation and a risk of repetition, and the Registrant has not taken full responsibility for his actions. The mitigating factors are that the Registrant had an unblemished professional record prior to these incidents since qualifying in 1987; the Panel has had sight of very positive testimonials from former clinicians and patients; the Registrant has commenced some remediation including that after the third incident the Registrant did make a Datix report, the Registrant has fully engaged with the HCPC process and, the Registrant made early admissions to the allegations. The Registrant appears committed to his practice and addressing his failings.

52. The Panel first considered whether to take no further action and was of the view that this would not be sufficient to protect the public where it had identified a risk of recurrence and a lack of full remediation.

53. The Panel also considered mediation and was of the view that it was not appropriate in these circumstances.

54. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. In terms of the Sanctions Policy, a caution may be appropriate where the lapse is isolated or of a minor nature, there is a low risk of recurrence and the Registrant has shown insight and taken remedial action. This was not an isolated incident and the Panel found there is risk of repetition. The Panel has found that the Registrant has not demonstrated sufficient insight although he has commenced remediating his failings. In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that a caution would not be an appropriate sanction as it would not address the need for greater remediation and thus would not address the risk of repetition.

55. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s failings are capable of remediation. The Panel is also of the view that the Registrant is capable of safe and effective practice while subject to conditions.  The Panel has therefore concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction which would protect the public and address the wider public interest considerations. The Panel considered that a suspension order would be punitive and disproportionate where they had identified failings which were capable of being remedied. Nor does the Panel consider a suspension necessary as a Conditions of Practice Order will fully address any risk to patient safety.

56. The Panel considers that a Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate for a period of 36 months with review. The Panel is of the view that this period would be sufficient to allow the Registrant to fully remediate the failings identified.

57. The Panel reminds the Registrant that the Conditions of Practice Order will be reviewed before its expiry.  A future reviewing panel might be assisted by the Registrant providing to them relevant information and documents linking to the Conditions of Practice Order;

a) A reflective statement setting out your reflections on the impact of your conduct on service users, colleagues and the public

b) Testimonials (including from your current employer if possible)

c) A progress report on your Personal Development Plan

 

 

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that for a period of 36 months from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Ian Lawson, must comply with the following Conditions of Practice:

1. Within 12 months of the Operative Date you must:

a) satisfactorily complete courses relevant to Podiatrists in:

• Nail surgery and use of local anaesthesia

• Record keeping and consent

b) forward a copy of confirmation of your completion of these courses to the HCPC within 28 working days of completion.

2. You must formulate a Personal Development Plan in conjunction with your supervisor (or line manager) designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:

• Nail surgery and use of local anaesthesia

• Record keeping and consent
Within 3 months of the “Operative Date”, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

3. You must meet with your supervisor (or line manager) on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

4. You must allow your supervisor (or line manager) to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

5. You must promptly inform the HCPC within 28 working days of recommencing any nail surgery or any other procedures requiring local anaesthesia.

6. Until assessed competent by your line manager to do so, you must not carry out any nail surgery or any other procedures requiring local anaesthesia unless directly supervised by a registered Podiatrist of a senior grade to yourself.

7. You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing every occasion when you carry out nail surgery or any other procedure requiring anaesthesia and provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC at each review or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period.

8. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment.

9. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

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

i. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work; and

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

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

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

Notes

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the Court of Session against the Panel’s decision and the Order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  The Panel’s Order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

European Alert Mechanism

In accordance with Regulation 67 of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015, the HCPC will inform the competent authorities in all other EEA States that your right to practise has been restricted.

You may appeal to the Sheriff against the HCPC’s decision to do so.  Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  This right of appeal is separate from your right to appeal against the decision and order of the Panel.

Interim Order

1. The Panel noted that the Registrant has received notification that an Interim Order may be applied for today in earlier correspondence from the HCPC and was reminded there may be an application for an Interim Order at the Impairment stage of the case.

2. Ms Luscombe submitted that in view of the nature of the Panel’s findings it was necessary to protect the public and it was in the wider public interest to impose an Interim of Conditions of Practice Order in the same terms as the substantive Order already determined. Ms Luscombe submitted that any Order would not come into effect for a period of 28 days during which time the public would not be protected. She stated that in the event of an Appeal the lengthy time awaited for an appeal to proceed would require any order to be imposed for a period of 18 months.

3. Mr Briggs did not object to this application.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor
. The Panel considered the nature of the Allegation found proved and whether an Order was needed to protect the public and in the wider public interest. The Panel having regard to the findings it has made, was satisfied that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 is necessary to protect members of the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

5. The Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

6. The Panel had regard to the time that any Appeal might take to proceed and was satisfied that an Interim Order for the same Conditions of Practice should be imposed for a period of 18 months to cover any appeal period.

7. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Ian R Lawson

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
12/08/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice