Mr Jamie Miller

Profession: Physiotherapist

Registration Number: PH105314

Interim Order: Imposed on 01 Jun 2017

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 08/01/2019 End: 17:00 11/01/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Council, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

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 or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.



(As amended at the Final Hearing commencing 15 October 2018)

During the course of your employment as a Physiotherapist with Gloucestershire NHS Foundation Trust on 24 June 2016 in relation to Service User A you:

1. Did not assess and / or treat the service user;

2. Did not place the service user on the weekend list;

3. The matters as set out in paragraph 1 and / or 2 constitute misconduct and / or lack of competence.

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


Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel had a bundle of HCPC case papers (unnumbered) A1 – D36. The Panel were also provided with a witness statement from the Registrant consisting of 74 paragraphs (pages 1-28) and two Registrant’s bundles. The first bundle consisted of 10 character references, a GP note and a document outlining the Registrant’s CPD record. The second bundle (unnumbered) contained two further references.

2. During the course of the hearing the Panel was also furnished with further documents by the Registrant. A third bundle (R3) (5 pages) contained two further testimonials. An additional single page document (R4) was also placed before the Panel and was an unredacted extract pertaining to a summary of discussion and investigation into an adverse clinical incident. The final bundle of documents (R5) (10 pages) pertained to the Registrant’s responses to the investigating committee.

Application to amend the Allegation

3. At the outset of the hearing Ms Mond-Wedd made an application to amend the Allegation. The Registrant had been put on notice of the proposed amendments in a letter dated 24 August 2018.

4. The proposed amendments were as follows:

i. Stem: Deletion of the words ‘between 22 June 2015 and 22 January 2017 you’ and insertion of the words ‘on 24 June 2016 in relation to Service User A you:’

ii. Particular 1: Deletion of the words ‘Demonstrated unsafe clinical practice which included: a) on 24 June 2016’ and also deletion of the word ‘visit’. Insertion of the words ‘assess and/or treat the service user;’

iii. Insertion of a new Particular 2: Deletion of the words ‘a high risk priority 1 patient and/or’ and ‘patient’. Insertion of the words ‘did not’ and ‘service user’;

iv. Amendment of the numbering for Particular 2 to Particular 3: Insertion of an ‘s’ in the word ‘matters’, insertion of ‘/ or 2’ and the deletion of an ‘s’ in the word ‘constitutes’; and

v. Amendment of the numbering of Particular 3 to Particular 4.

5. Ms Hart accepted the amendments and raised no objection to the particulars being amended.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and carefully considered the HCPC application to amend the particulars. The Panel concluded, after reviewing each of the proposed amendments, that they would agree to the particulars being amended for the following reasons:

i. the Registrant had been provided with significant notice of the HCPC’s intention to amend the Allegation, having been put on notice in August 2018, some four months before the commencement of the substantive hearing;

ii. the Registrant had not provided any objection to the proposed amendments;

iii. on the whole, the proposed amendments were to correct typographical errors and to provide further clarification of the particulars; and

iv. the proposed amendments did not seek to widen the scope of the Allegation.

7. The Panel therefore concluded that the proposed amendments to the particulars did not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation and therefore there was no likelihood of injustice to the Registrant.


8. The Registrant is, and was at the relevant times, registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist.

9. The Registrant commenced his employment with Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) on 22 June 2015. His role required him to work within the Therapy Team, assessing, planning and implementing treatment programmes for service users. He was also required to deliver therapeutic intervention by using the principles of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy. He gained experience in a variety of clinical areas in six or twelve monthly rotations.

10. Service User A was admitted to Cheltenham General Hospital with exacerbation of Bronchiectasis. Her symptoms included shortness of breath, tiredness and increased phlegm on the chest. Service User A was frail and used nebulisers and was administered oxygen. Her condition was chronic and there was a risk of deterioration owing to increased phlegm, which was building up on her chest. She was deemed to be a high-risk patient.

11. Service User A also suffered from Arthritis which limited her mobility. When at home she had carers visit twice daily to assist with washing and dressing.

12. The Respiratory Team, within the Trust, was assisting Service User A with breathing exercises and encouraging her to drink fluids. Owing to her clinical condition, frailty and her lack of mobility it was necessary for Service User A to be seen daily to monitor her progression.

13. The HCPC case is that the Registrant was asked, by his supervisor, to see Service User A on Friday, 24 June 2016 and was also asked to place Service User A onto the weekend list after his visit. The weekend list is a list that the Trust’s staff place service users on when they are in need of assistance or are at risk of deterioration over the weekend. The weekend list includes patients on all wards and also includes those in Intensive Care.

14. Concerns were raised regarding Service User A’s care when the Registrant’s supervisor returned to work on the Monday, 27 June 2016. Weekend staff explained to the Registrant’s supervisor that Service User A had deteriorated significantly over the weekend and had been placed in palliative care. It was explained that the physiotherapist on call on Saturday, 25 June 2016 highlighted that they could not find the therapy notes and had been called to see Service User A because her oxygen levels were very low.

15. An incident report was created which notified the Clinical Lead Therapist to the adverse clinical incident. He, in turn, investigated the matter on behalf of the Trust.

16. The HCPC relied on the evidence of three witnesses. Two of the witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing.

17. The Registrant was in attendance and also gave oral evidence.

Decision on Facts

Assessment of Witnesses

Witness TF

18. Witness TF has been employed by the Trust as a Senior Physiotherapist since April 2016. TF informed the Panel that part of her role necessitated her working in the Critical Care, Surgical and Medical Respiratory Team where she would cover the workload of the Intensive Care and Surgical wards as well as the Medical Respiratory wards. TF explained that she also oversees the Band 5 staff on the Intensive Care and Surgical wards and the Therapy Support workers on the vascular ward.

19. Prior to this role TF was employed as a Senior Physiotherapist for cardiac rehabilitation patients and had performed this role for eight years.

20. TF informed the Panel that the Registrant carried out his role with supervision and reported to her daily, except for on Friday’s when TF did not work.

21. The Panel found witness TF to be credible and reliable. She was clear and concise and gave compelling evidence.

Witness DT

22. Witness DT is currently employed by the Trust as the Diagnostic and Specialities Division Business Manager and has been performing this role since October 2016. Prior to this role DT was employed by the Trust, between November 2005 and October 2016, as Clinical Lead Therapist for Critical Care and Surgery.

23. DT informed the Panel that as Clinical Lead within the department it was his responsibility to investigate the adverse clinical incident.

24. DT conducted the investigation into Service User A not being seen on Friday, 24 June 2016 and not being placed on the weekend list, which ultimately resulted in the Registrant being informed that he was to take “learning points forward as part of his on-going wider performance review”.

25. The Panel found Witness DT to be a credible and reliable witness. The Panel had no reason to doubt his recollection of events or the evidence provided.

The Registrant

26. The Panel noted the Registrant’s good character and took this into account when assessing his evidence.

27. The Panel found the Registrant to be measured when giving his oral evidence and having considered all of the evidence carefully, the Panel were troubled by numerous elements of the Registrant’s evidence and the account of events he gave. The Panel noted, for example, that there were a number of inconsistencies between the Registrant’s explanations during the internal investigation, as to his reason for not seeing Service User A, and the evidence provided in his witness statement and evidence to the Panel.

28. Further, the Panel found the Registrant’s oral evidence was not consistent with his earlier written statements and accounts. The Panel felt that the Registrant had extended and amplified his evidence with regards to the nature and reasons for not seeing Service User A and for not placing her on the weekend list.

29. Taking all of the above into account, the Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable in a number of respects and found that this undermined the totality of his evidence and his credibility as a witness.

Panel’s Approach

30. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

31. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the oral evidence of the HCPC witnesses, the Registrant, the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundles as well as the oral submissions made by Ms Mond-Wedd on behalf of the HCPC, and those made by Ms Hart on behalf of the Registrant.

32. The Panel also had regard to the fact that the Registrant admitted both of the particulars contained within the Allegation and took his admissions into account when determining the facts of the case.

33.  The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1 – Found Proved

During the course of your employment as a Physiotherapist with Gloucestershire NHS Foundation Trust on 24 June 2016 in relation to Service User A you:

1.  did not assess and / or treat the service user;

34. The Panel noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant was employed by the Trust or that he was responsible for treating Service User A on 24 June 2016.

35. TF informed the Panel that because she did not routinely work on a Friday, she would always provide the team with a plan and a handover to ensure that they were aware of the patients, their conditions and treatment plans. The handover, which was delivered orally and in the handover sheet, would also outline what was to happen whilst she was away.

36. TF gave evidence that on Thursday, 23 June 2016 she had a verbal handover with the Registrant. She indicated that she informed the Registrant that Service User A was a high-risk patient and that she may deteriorate. She also told the Panel that she highlighted Service User A’s priority on her handover sheet, by marking Service User A with an asterisk – a practice that was accepted by all parties as denoting a high priority patient on the ward. She indicated that she gave the handover sheet to the Registrant on Thursday, 23 June 2016 prior to departing for the day.

37. TF told the Panel that during the oral handover with the Registrant she asked the Registrant to assess Service User A on Friday, 24 June 2016 and to go through breathing exercises with her and to see if there was anything more that could be done to help her clear her secretions more easily.

38. TF gave evidence that she only became aware that Service User A had not been seen on Friday, 24 June 2016 when she was informed by the weekend staff that Service User A had deteriorated significantly and was in palliative care. TF told the Panel that she then looked at Service User A’s therapy notes to see what had occurred over the weekend and established that a circle had been placed around Service User A’s name. She explained that placing a circle around a patient’s name was a practise that was adopted to indicate a new patient admission to the ward.

39. TF informed the Panel that upon seeing this circle she spoke with the Registrant. He informed her that he did not see Service User A on Friday, 24 June 2016 because he could not find her notes; informing her that they were missing.

40. TF informed the Panel that another physiotherapist was called out to see Service User A on Saturday, 25 June 2016, owing to her deterioration, and they could also not find her therapy notes.

41. The Panel noted that in the Registrant’s witness statement and oral evidence the Registrant acknowledged and accepted being given a handover by TF on 23 June 2016. The Registrant also accepted that he should have seen Service User A to assess her and provide her with treatment. The Registrant provided a number of reasons as to why he had not seen Service User A. During the Trust investigation he had informed DT and TF that he did not see Service User A because he could not find her notes. When giving oral evidence he stated that it was because he had misheard, during a team meeting, that she was going to be discharged from hospital that day and therefore there was no need to see her.

42. The Panel also noted that the Registrant gave conflicting evidence regarding whether he had seen Service User A, informing the Panel, when challenged, that he could not recall the specifics of the event.

43. Notwithstanding the varying accounts and reasons provided by the Registrant in his evidence, as to why he had not assessed or treated Service User A, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was under an obligation to assess and treat Service User A on 24 June 2016 and find as a matter of fact that he failed to do so.

44. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1 proved.

Particular 2 – Found Proved

2. did not place the service user on the weekend list;

45. TF informed the Panel that during her handover with the Registrant, on Thursday, 23 June 2016, she asked the Registrant to place Service User A on the weekend list.

46. Further, TF also informed the Panel that had the Registrant seen Service User A on Friday, 24 June 2016, it would have been obvious to him, given Service User A’s presentation and on-going condition, that she should have been placed on the weekend list. TF informed the Panel that Service User A had been receiving daily physiotherapy.

47. The Panel noted that the Registrant had, at the start of the hearing, accepted that he didn’t place Service User A onto the weekend list but that he disputed being asked to place Service User A onto the weekend list by TF. However, after hearing TF’s evidence he accepted her evidence and admitted that she had asked him to place Service User A onto the list.

48. The Panel were satisfied that the Registrant was under an obligation to place Service User A on the weekend list and found, as a matter of fact, that he failed to do so.

49. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2 proved.

Decision on Grounds

50. Having found Particulars 1 and 2 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct and / or a lack of competence.

Panels Approach

51. The Panel took into account the written submissions of the Registrant and the oral submissions made by the parties. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Lack of Competence

52. Competence describes knowledge and skills, i.e. what a Registrant ‘can-do’. The appropriate standard to be applied is that applicable to the post to which the practitioner had been appointed and the work he was carrying out; [Holton v GMC]. Competence of a Registrant is generally to be decided by reference to a fair sample of their work; R (on the application of Calhaem) v GMC [2007] EWHC2606admin.

53. The Panel considered that the matters charged in the particulars of the Allegation did not represent a fair sample of the Registrant’s work as a Physiotherapist and did not amount to a lack of competence. The Panel also did not consider that as a single incident it was serious enough to amount a lack of competence.


54. In considering the issue of misconduct, the Panel bore in mind the explanation of that term given by the Privy Council in the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 311 where it was stated that:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a … practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the misconduct to the profession ... Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious.”

55. The Panel considered whether any of the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

56. The Panel considered the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (dated January 2016) and was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct had breached Standards: 

1 promote and protect the interests of service users and carers;

6.1  You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

6.2  You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

57. The Panel also found breaches of the following parts of the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists in England:

1  be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice;

1.1  know the limits of their practice and when to seek advice or refer to another professional;

1.2  recognise the need to manage their own workload and resources effectively and be able to practise accordingly;

2  be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession;

2.1  understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times;

2.2  understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council;

2.7  be able to exercise a professional duty of care;

3  be able to maintain fitness to practise;

3.1  understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct;

4  be able to practise as an autonomous professional, exercising their own professional judgement;

4.1  be able to assess a professional situation, determine the nature and severity of the problem and call upon the required knowledge and experience to deal with the problem

4.2  be able to make reasoned decisions to initiate, continue, modify or cease techniques or procedures, and record the decisions and reasoning appropriately

4.3  be able to initiate resolution of problems and be able to exercise personal initiative

4.4  recognise that they are personally responsible for and must be able to justify their decisions

4.5  be able to make and receive appropriate referral

14 be able to draw on appropriate knowledge and skills to inform practice

14.19  be able to change their practice as needed to take account of new developments or changing contexts

58. The Panel was aware that breach of the standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered Physiotherapist.

59. The Panel did not find the Registrant’s numerous and varying explanations regarding why he had not assessed or treated Service User A, or placed her on the weekend list, plausible. The Panel were particularly concerned with the Registrant’s suggestion that he did not treat, assess or see Service User A because she was ready to be discharged.

60. The Registrant was provided with an oral handover by TF during which she had expressly asked the Registrant to assess and treat Service User A and to place her on the weekend list. In addition, TF provided the Registrant with a handover sheet on which she had highlighted, by use of an asterisk, that Service User A was high priority because she was at risk of deterioration.

61. The Registrant had personally seen the patient on the Tuesday of the same week. Based on his own professional knowledge of the condition Bronchiectasis and his own understanding of therapeutic management combined with his accepted knowledge that she was being seen daily on the ward, the Panel was of the view that it should have been obvious to the Registrant, contrary to his evidence, that Service User A was not ready for discharge on day five after admission, as he claimed. The Panel accepted TF’s evidence that Service User A would have required treatment for ten days to two weeks after her admission. The Panel was of the view that Service User A was not likely to have been discharged on Friday, 24 June 2016.

62. Of particular concern to the Panel was the fact that the Registrant knew that he should have seen Service User A and that with this knowledge in mind, he failed to do so.

63. The Panel was also troubled by the serious lack of understanding and awareness regarding his failure to see Service User A when he should have known that she needed seeing, given her serious condition, and the fact that he had been directly asked to see her.

64. The Registrant’s conduct, in failing to treat Service User A, may have had an adverse affect on her which, combined with the action / inaction of others, resulted in Service User A being placed in palliative care.

65. The Panel considered that the above matters represented serious breaches of professional standards, falling far below the behaviour expected of a registered Physiotherapist and amounted to misconduct.

66. The Panel therefore found that Particular 1 and Particular 2 each amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

67. Having found misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether, as a result of that misconduct the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired.

68. The Panel took into account all of the evidence, the submissions made by Ms Mond-Wedd and Ms Hart, the oral and written submissions provided by the Registrant and the oral and written testimonials provided by the Registrant.

69. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note: “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired”. The Panel also accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor advised that in determining current impairment the Panel should have regard to the following aspects of the public interest:

i. The ‘personal’ component: the current behaviour of the individual Registrant; and

ii. The ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

70. The Registrant’s conduct is potentially remediable. However, the Panel is extremely concerned at the Registrant’s astonishing lack of insight into his behaviour and the effect that it had on a very vulnerable service user. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s evidence, both oral and written, focussed primarily on how the incident had effected him and his practise, with little regard shown for how his actions had impacted Service User A, his colleagues or the wider profession. The Panel were also concerned that he has provided limited evidence of remorse.

71. The Registrant gave evidence, on more than one occasion, that one of the primary reasons for his misunderstanding of what was required of him was because he had misheard what TF told him. Whilst TF accepted that she could have perhaps conveyed information to the Registrant differently, having heard from all of the witnesses the Panel does not accept that the Registrant’s misconduct was as a result of his hearing deficit. The Registrant was provided with both oral and written instructions to assess and treat Service User A. He had personally treated her on the preceding Tuesday. The Panel was of the view that if he had been in any doubt over what to do, or what was required of him, he could have consulted a senior colleague who was available on the day and he accepted that he did not to do so. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant showed a reckless disregard for Service User A, her care and the impact that not seeing her would have on her on-going care and condition.

72. Further, whilst the Registrant has provided the Panel with a reflective piece and some evidence of training, the training that has been undertaken by the Registrant, does not specifically state that it covered Bronchiectasis, and the Panel has seen no evidence to say this was covered.

73. The Panel therefore believes that there is a risk of repetition of his failings and that his conduct is likely to recur.

74. The Panel went on to consider whether this was a case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

75. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator undermined if a finding of impairment were not made given the failings and lack of insight of the Registrant. The Panel was also satisfied that there was a need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the physiotherapist profession and that an informed member of the public would expect there to be a finding of impairment in respect of the misconduct found in this case.

76. Accordingly, the Panel also found the Registrant’s current fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds as well as for public protection.

77. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

78. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Ms Mond-Wedd and Ms Hart, together with the representations provided by the Registrant during the hearing. The Panel also referred to the “Indicative Sanctions Policy” issued by the HCPC.

79. The Panel had in mind the fact that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

80. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be that the Registrant:

• may have caused harm to Service User A;

• lacked insight into his failings;

• lacked empathy towards Service User A regarding the effect of his actions;

• failed to comply with express instructions provided by a superior;

• had provided insufficient evidence of remediation; and

• posed a risk in terms of repetition of his conduct.

81. The Panel considered the following mitigating factors to be:

• no previous disciplinary record in his career as a Physiotherapist;

• it was an isolated incident;

• the Registrant had admitted his wrongdoing;

• the Panel had received positive testimonials on the Registrant’s behalf;

• he had shown some evidence of remorse having accepted that his “performance in relation to Service User A was below par”; and

• that the Registrant had fully engaged with the HCPC process.

82. In light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action, since this would not protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel.

83. The Panel considered that a Mediation Order would not be appropriate in this case.

84. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. However, the Panel was firmly of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case, nor would it address the short comings in the Registrant’s insight. The Registrant’s failings impacted a vulnerable service user and the Panel has already concluded that there is a risk of such behaviour being repeated. A caution, therefore, would not protect the public from such risk. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its Regulator, would be undermined if such behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

85. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. As identified at the impairment stage, the failings identified are of a kind that could be remedied, and 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 also considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings, send a clear message that such conduct was not to be tolerated and would provide the Registrant with an opportunity to reflect on his shortcomings. In light of all the matters highlighted in this case, the Panel considered that this was a suitable case for a Conditions of Practice Order.

86. 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 Order to be necessary, as a Conditions of Practice Order will fully address any risk to patient safety and confidence in the profession. A Suspension Order would be disproportionate at this stage and that a lesser sanction was therefore appropriate in this case.


That the Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 12 months from the date that this Order comes into effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Jamie Miller, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

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

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you 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).

2. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC, or other appropriate statutory regulator, and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 7 days of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor and follow their advice and recommendations.

3. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:

A. knowledge, understanding and appropriate treatment regarding patients with Bronchiectasis; and

B. effective communication with patients with cognitive impairment.

4. Within two months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

5. You must meet with your supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6. 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.

7. You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing every occasion when you have dealt with a challenging situation with a patient and must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC on a two month basis or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period, the first profile or confirmation must be provided 2 months after of the Operative Date.

8. You must produce a written reflective piece reflecting on the implications of the findings of the Panel, including an account as to how your actions impacted on Service User A, Service User A’s family, your colleagues, the Trust and the wider profession. This should be submitted to the HCPC at least 28 days prior to any future reviewing panel.


Interim Order

1. The Panel considered Mr Mond-Wedd’s application for an Interim Conditions of Practice Order in terms of Article 31 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.

2. Having considered both submissions and the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel agreed to grant the application for an Interim Conditions of Practice Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, on the same terms as the substantive order, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

3. 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 Jamie Miller

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
08/01/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice