Mr Simon Trafford

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA43299

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 01/12/2020 End: 17:00 01/12/2020

Location: Virtual Hearing - Via video conference

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 with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) as a paramedic and employed with South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAMB) you;

1. Between in or around August 2017 and in or around June 2018, failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Servicer User A, in that you: a) [not proved]

b) [not proved]

c) Provided on-going treatment and/or advice to Service User A and/or her family

d) Provided a loan of £40 to Service User A

2. Sent inappropriate messages to Service User A, including:

a) ‘It’s a shame yr with Person C otherwise I could have given you money in return for something Ive not had in nearly two years! Lol! (I so shouldn’t have text you that) I must behave! X’ and/or

b) ‘Oh I see so technically yr with him. Sorry I was mis behaving & feeling deprived ive had nothing sexual for best part of two years!!!! Getting old to!!!

3. Your actions described at paragraph 2 were sexually motivated

4. The particulars set out at paragraphs 1 to 3 constitute misconduct

5. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Hearing in Private

1. At the outset of the case, Mr D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC, applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private, in order to protect the Registrant’s private life. He explained that those parts of the substantive hearing in November 2019 which related to the Registrant’s private life had been heard in private. This application was supported by Ms Freer on behalf of the Registrant.

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that there were likely to be references to the Registrant’s private life. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that it was justified to hear such parts of the case in private, in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.

Background

3. The Registrant is a Registered Paramedic, employed at the time of these allegations by South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAMB) and based at the Medway Ambulance Station. The Registrant had been employed in various roles with SECAMB since 1996, including as an Ambulance Technician and as a Paramedic, registering on 26 August 2017.

4. Concerns first arose in June 2018 after an anonymous complaint was received about the Registrant sending inappropriate messages to Service User A.

5. The Registrant had become Facebook friends with Service User A after attending to her as an Ambulance Technician in April 2017. The Registrant and Service User A exchanged a series of messages and the Registrant sent a message to Service User A alluding to having sex with her in exchange for money (as set out in particulars 2(a) and 2(b)).

6. The matter was investigated by his employer, following which it was referred to the HCPC. The Registrant was given a final written warning for 24 months by his employer.

7. The HCPC substantive hearing took place from 4 to 7 November 2019. The Registrant admitted and the substantive hearing panel found proved, that the Registrant’s actions in sending the text messages to Service User A were sexually motivated. In its determination regarding misconduct, the substantive panel stated:

The Panel considered that the Registrant had been well aware of what was expected of him in terms of maintaining professional boundaries with Service User A. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant fell significantly short of those expectations. From the outset, key to the development and continuance of the relationship with Service User A was his professional role as a Paramedic. The result was the development of an inappropriate and unhealthy relationship, which the Registrant described as a ‘nuisance’ and ‘a problem’ but had become ‘flirty’ and in hindsight he should have stopped. However, this continued over a period of months, culminating in an opportunistic and thinly disguised request for paid sex when the Registrant knew Service User A was vulnerable due to financial need and having given birth only weeks before.

8. The substantive panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components. In relation to insight it found:

Despite all these positive indicators of insight, the Panel found itself unable to conclude that the Registrant had demonstrated full insight into his failings. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant’s view of his failings appeared to focus on the social media aspect of the case rather than the underlying issue of the inappropriacy of his developing and maintaining a relationship with Service User A...

The Panel concluded that while the Registrant had demonstrated developing insight, it was not yet complete.

9. In relation to remediation, the substantive panel noted that the Registrant had taken some steps to guard against repetition, including undertaking an online training course in Professional Boundaries, seeing his GP, and undertaking counselling. In its determination, the substantive panel concluded:

That the Registrant has made genuine and ongoing efforts to remediate his misconduct but that this is currently work in progress

10. As sanction, the substantive panel imposed a 12 months Conditions of Practice Order. That Order was in the following terms:

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

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

a. satisfactorily complete a face to face training course of no less than one day’s duration on the subject of maintaining professional boundaries in healthcare; and

b. forward a copy of your results to the HCPC.

2. You must continue to remain under the care of your general practitioner and inform him or her that you are subject to these conditions.

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

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

5. 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 prospective employer (at the time of your application); c. Any prospective employer at the time of your application.

6. 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 one month of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

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

• Professional boundaries
• Social Media
• Knowledge and understanding of the HCPC document

“Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics” with particular regard to Standards:

“1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.
2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

11. On 30 January 2020, in accordance with his conditions, the Registrant informed the HCPC that he was subject to an investigation at work following a complaint. On 27 August 2020, a disciplinary hearing was held by his employer, relating to the inappropriate use of social media, text, photo and video messaging amounting to sexual harassment within the workplace. Following the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant was dismissed from his employment on 27 August 2020.

The Review on 30 October 2020

12. The Conditions of Practice Order was reviewed on 30 October 2020. The Registrant was not present and was not represented at that hearing. The panel determined that there had been good service of the Notice which informed the Registrant of the review hearing. The panel decided to proceed with the Review in the absence of the Registrant.

13. Ms Denholm, then representing HCPC, submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. She submitted that a Suspension Order was the appropriate order for the panel to make. Her arguments in support of these submissions were summarised by the reviewing panel in the following terms:

“Ms Denholm, on behalf of the HCPC, referred the Panel to the documents within the hearing bundle which outlined the background and circumstances since the Conditions of Practice Order was imposed. She drew the Panel’s attention to the correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC between January and July 2020. She identified that at the time the Conditions of Practice Order was imposed, the Registrant was engaging with the HCPC. In his email of 30 January 2020, the Registrant informed the HCPC that he was due to attend a three day face to face course in Maintaining Professional Boundaries from 4 – 6 February 2020, and he subsequently sent in the certificate to demonstrate successful completion of the course..

Ms Denholm explained to the Panel that the Registrant had also indicated in the 30 January 2020 email that a further complaint had been raised against him. In an email of 18 February 2020, the Registrant advised the HCPC that he had been suspended by his employer pending the investigation. In an email dated 17 April 2020, the Registrant’s employer confirmed that there was an investigation ongoing in respect of four incidents. On 27 August 2020, an employer disciplinary hearing was held in relation to allegations of a similar nature to the substantive hearing. The allegations involved three younger colleagues, whereby the employer had concluded that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to episodes of sexual harassment.

Ms Denholm explained that the position of the HCPC was that the Registrant had not satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the substantive panel. She acknowledged that the previous panel had recognised the concerns were capable of being remedied. She also acknowledged that the latest allegations had not yet been tested, and the HCPC investigation was in its early stages.

Ms Denholm submitted that the Registrant remains impaired on both the personal and public components. She submitted that he had not demonstrated full compliance with the conditions, noting that he had been dismissed in August 2020. However, his lack of engagement with the HCPC since July 2020 meant that this Panel had no current information regarding his employment or personal circumstances. Consequently, she submitted that the concerns of the previous substantive panel remained and the Registrant had not satisfied the persuasive burden on him to demonstrate that he was fit to resume unrestricted practice.

Ms Denholm submitted that the Conditions of Practice Order was no longer appropriate as the Registrant had failed to engage and conditions were no longer workable. She invited the Panel to impose a Suspension Order as conditions were insufficient to protect the public and the public interest.

14. The panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. That decision was explained in the following terms:

The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel to treat the latest allegations with caution as they were untested and the HCPC investigation was ongoing. She advised the Panel that the information about the new allegations was relevant only in assessing whether the Registrant had met the persuasive burden of demonstrating that he was fit to practise unrestricted.

The Panel exercised its independent judgement in determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and if it was, what action to take in respect of sanction. It had regard to the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC.

The Panel noted the observations of the substantive panel that the Registrant had taken some steps to remedy his behaviour, but these were insufficient at that time. This Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had subsequently attended a three-day course in Maintaining Professional Boundaries in February 2020. It noted that for a large part of 2020, the Registrant had been suspended by his employer pending investigation and the conditions would have been more challenging to meet. This had been acknowledged by the case manager in an email dated 25 June 2020. However, the Registrant had stopped communicating with the HCPC from 11 July 2020, and the Panel had no current information from him. It had no information about what the Registrant had learnt from the course, how he had reflected on his behaviour in light of the course and how it would shape his actions moving forward.

The Panel considered that the Registrant’s initial engagement following the imposition of conditions demonstrated he was aware of the requirements of the conditions. The Panel was therefore particularly concerned that he had stopped engaging with the process. The Panel noted that the Registrant, in his email of 18 February 2020, had indicated that he was aware of the nature, if not the specific detail, of the new allegations, which were similar to the allegations found proved at the substantive hearing. The fact that he had not communicated with the HCPC since the outcome of the employer’s disciplinary hearing indicated to the Panel that the Registrant lacked an understanding of the impact of additional similar allegations on the public’s confidence in the profession. He had provided no written reflections to show whether he recognised that public confidence may be affected in a situation where a Registrant had been dealt with by his Regulator for sending sexually motivated texts and was subsequently alleged to have acted in a similar way again. In the Panel’s view, there was no evidence that the Registrant’s insight had continued to develop. Indeed, in the absence of any engagement from the Registrant since July 2020, the Panel considered that his insight may have diminished since the substantive hearing.
In all the circumstances, given the Registrant’s lack of engagement, the Panel considered that the risk of repetition identified by the substantive panel remained. Notwithstanding the course that the Registrant had undertaken in Maintaining Professional Boundaries in February 2020, in the Panel’s judgement, the risk of repetition was not sufficiently reduced. He had not discharged the persuasive burden on him to demonstrate that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in respect of the personal component.
In relation to the public component, the Panel considered that a member of the public would be concerned if a finding of impairment was not made in a situation where a Registrant had been dealt with by his Regulator for sending sexually motivated texts and was subsequently alleged to have acted in a similar way again. It considered that concern would be heightened in a case where a Registrant had ceased to engage with his Regulator. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in respect of the public component.

15. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired, the panel determined that the only appropriate sanction was a Suspension order for a period of 12 months. It explained that decision in the following terms:

In relation to sanction, the Panel considered that the options of taking no action, mediation or imposing a Caution Order were not appropriate given the nature of the ongoing concerns, the Registrant’s incomplete insight, and the risk of repetition.

In relation to Conditions of Practice, the Panel had regard to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy. While the Panel acknowledged that a number of the factors which may make conditions appropriate were present in this case, the Panel considered that the position had changed since the imposition of the substantive order. The Panel was no longer confident that the Registrant would comply with the conditions, given his lack of engagement. Further, the Panel did not consider that conditions remained workable given that the Panel had no up-to-date information about the Registrant’s employment or personal circumstances. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 107 of the Sanctions Policy, which identifies that conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was no longer the appropriate and proportionate response.

The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. It had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy and considered that a number of the factors were present in this case, albeit the Panel had noted an ongoing risk of repetition. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would adequately protect the public for the period that it was in place. The Panel was careful to remind itself that there were no findings of fact in relation to the subsequent allegations, and the substantive panel in November 2019 had concluded that the misconduct found was isolated in nature.

The Panel was minded to impose a Suspension Order, but in order to satisfy itself that this was the appropriate sanction it went on to look at a Striking-Off Order. The Panel understood that this is a sanction of last resort. The Panel noted that the Registrant had raised the concerns of the latest allegations by disclosing them to the HCPC. The Panel noted that the Registrant had previously engaged with the HCPC and had been willing to comply with conditions. In all the circumstances the Panel considered that a Striking-Off order would be disproportionate at this time.

16. At the conclusion of its determination, the panel made the following observation:

The Panel determined to impose a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months, to come into effect on the expiry of the existing Order. In deciding this length, the Panel considered that it would give the Registrant time, if he wished, to re-engage with his Regulator; to further develop his insight; and to attempt to discharge the persuasive burden on him to demonstrate that he is fit to resume unrestricted practice.

The application for an early review

17. On 9 November 2020 the Registrant sent the HCPC the following email:

Dear Sir/Madam.

Im Simon Trafford Paramedic PA43299. In was made aware today by my employer that the review hearing had been held & that the result was suspension from 5/12/2020. I had been keeping the hcpc up to date with my progress of the conditions of practice but must appoligise I had forgotten to update you. I stopped working for secamb on 27/08/2020 & therefore was no longer using their e mail system. [redacted]. I have not received any phone calls or postal mail so was unaware of the date of the review hearing as I would have replied & attended. My contact details are as below: [ redacted] I intend to appeal the decision and another letter will follow as soon as possible

18. On 18 November 2020 the Registrant’s solicitors sent the HCPC the following email on behalf of the Registrant.

Dear Sirs,

I write with regard to the above named Registrant who has been made aware that a Substantive Order Review hearing was held in his absence on 30th October 2020.
Mr Trafford was not aware of the hearing as he did not receive any correspondence via email or post to advise that it was taking place. Had Mr Trafford received such correspondence, he would have attended the hearing and sought legal representation. Mr Trafford first became aware that the hearing had taken place after being notified by his current employer. He subsequently received a telephone call from someone at the HCPC and was then received a letter.
Mr Trafford came before the HCPC between 4th – 7th November 2019 for the Substantive Hearing. A 12 month Substantive Conditions of Practice Order and a 12 month Interim Conditions of Practice Order was imposed. We understand however, that following the review hearing on 30th October, this has been varied to an Interim Suspension Order.
I would be grateful if you would provide us with a copy of the full determination of the review hearing.
We also request that this matter is listed for an early substantive order review so as to afford Mr Trafford the opportunity to make representations.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards,
Sophie

The decision of this Panel

19. The Registrant gave evidence to the panel. In summary:

• He said that he had developed a much greater understanding as to impact of his actions, which he accepted went far beyond a single text message. He said that he realised that they had an impact on the profession, on colleagues and on the recipient of the message.

• He explained that he would in the future be very much more careful to maintain professional boundaries. In particular he would refrain from extensive use of social media and from anything approaching what could be regarded as establishing personal relations with service users.

• He gave a detailed account of his present employment with P Wave Medical Ltd and the supervision that he receives.

• He acknowledged that he had not informed the HCPC of the outcome of the disciplinary process in August 2020 and gave reasons for that failure.

• He described the steps that he had taken to comply with the conditions imposed in November 2019 and stated his willingness to comply with such conditions as might be imposed by the Panel.

• He described the training that he had undertaken since November 2019 to comply with the conditions imposed in November 2019 and to ensure that his clinical skills were maintained, up to date and relevant.

• He explained why he was not aware of the hearing in October 2020 until after it had occurred. He said that as soon as he became aware of it, he contacted the HCPC with a view to an early review or an “appeal” of the Order then made.

20. Documents were submitted on behalf of the Registrant. The documents included:

• A testimonial from the Chaplain to the South East Coast Ambulance Service Medway, a reference from his present employer, P Wave Medical Ltd.

• A Personal Development Plan (PDP) formulated in February 2020.

• A number of training and course certificates.

• A number of service user feedback documents and letters of thanks from service users.

21. Mr D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired He said that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not be sufficient to address the risks that had been identified. He submitted that a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate but that the HCPC was “neutral” as between a Conditions of Practise order and a Suspension Order. His arguments in support of the above included the following:

• In support of his contention that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired. He relied primarily upon the facts as identified and expressed by the previous panels. He submitted that from the Registrant’s evidence and the material submitted it was clear that the Registrant was in breach of some of the Conditions imposed in November 2019. For example, his failure to inform the HCPC as to the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. He suggested that the Registrant had not developed full insight and still presented a continuing risk to service users. He also submitted that public confidence in the regulator and in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant was permitted to continue in unrestricted practice.

• With regard to the sanction, he explained that whilst the HCPC was neutral as between a Conditions of Practice Order and a Suspension Order, he suggested that the Panel should consider on the one hand, the fact that the Registrant was in breach of some of the Conditions imposed in November 2019 and that further there was a period of non-engagement by the Registrant between July 2020 and November 2020. However, and on the other hand, there was evidence of significant attempts by the Registrant at remediation.

22. Ms Freer on behalf of the Registrant submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired. She further submitted that if the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired the Panel should impose either a Caution Order or a Conditions of Practice Order. In support of these submissions she said that the Registrant:

• Had complied with the most relevant of the Conditions that were imposed in November 2019, in particular, by taking the three days course in personal boundaries, had engaged with the HCPC from November 2019 until July 2020. Further, she suggested that there were mitigating factors to explain his non-engagement between July 2020 and November 2020.

• Accepted that there had been breaches of some of the Conditions, for example, the Registrant’s failure to inform the HCPC of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing in August 2020. But submitted that these were not sufficiently serious to require a finding of present impairment to the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

• Had developed considerable insight and had addressed the concerns expressed by the substantive panel; in these circumstances she submitted that neither the personal nor the public component required a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.

• In the event of a finding of present impairment, the appropriate sanction was either a Caution Order or a Conditions of Practice Order. She submitted that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate.

23. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor

24. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are summarised in the email sent to the Registrant and giving notice of this hearing .

25. This Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and if so whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of this Panel on Impairment

26. Having taking account of both the submissions that have been made and the evidence of the Registrant, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. Its reasons are the same as those expressed by the reviewing panel on 30 October 2020. In particular, the Panel endorsed the view that was formed by the substantive panel and which was quoted by the reviewing panel namely:

Despite all these positive indicators of insight, the Panel found itself unable to conclude that the Registrant had demonstrated full insight into his failings. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant’s view of his failings appeared to focus on the social media aspect of the case rather than the underlying issue of the inappropriacy of his developing and maintaining a relationship with Service User A...

The Panel concluded that while the Registrant had demonstrated developing insight, it was not yet complete.

27. In coming to this conclusion, this Panel has taken into account that the Registrant’s PDP has not been updated or progressed since February 2020, nor did the objectives reflect the allegations found proved in relation to sexually motivated behaviour and the impact of this type of behaviour on the public perception of the profession as a whole. It has also taken into account that there have been breaches of the Conditions; no reflective pieces; nor a progress report in relation to Condition 7. The Panel also noted that the Registrant is currently appealing his dismissal from SECAMB on 27 August 2020, in relation to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

28. The Panel therefore considers that the Registrant continues to pose a risk to service users. Moreover, the Panel also concludes that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if the Panel was to determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not now impaired and as a consequence the Registrant was permitted to return to unrestricted practice.

Decision of this Panel on Sanction:

29. In considering the appropriate order the Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy [SP] published in March 2019, to both the submissions that have been made and to the advice of the Legal Assessor.

30. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive and that it must consider the risk the Registrant may pose to services users in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required.

31. The Panel has considered the sanctions available in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not be appropriate. Neither would afford the necessary public protection or address the public interest.

32. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel took into account paragraphs 106, 107 and 121 of the SP. The Panel considers that the allegations found proved can now reasonably be addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order. It has received today sufficient information as to the Registrant’s present circumstances as to conclude that workable and enforceable conditions can be formulated. It has noted the Registrant’s evidence as to his willingness to comply with conditions and it has applied the principle of proportionality.

33. Having heard the evidence that the Registrant has given to this Panel and seen the material that has now been produced on his behalf, the Panel has concluded that it would now be disproportionate to continue the Suspension Order. Accordingly, the Panel has determined to replace the present Suspension Order with a Conditions of Practice Order which will be in the terms set out below and will be for a period of 12 months. In formulating the Conditions the Panel took into account the change of circumstances that has occurred since the hearing in November 2019 and also the fact that the Registrant has already complied with some of the Conditions that were then put in place.

34. This Order will be reviewed before it expires on 05 December 2021. The panel that reviews it, may be assisted by the following

• The personal engagement of the Registrant.

• A report from the Registrant’s workplace supervisor as to the Registrant’s performance and conduct at work and as to his implementation of the Personal Development as specified in the Conditions.

Order

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect on 5 December 2020 (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Simon Trafford, must comply with the following Conditions of Practice:

1. [redacted]

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

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

4. 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 prospective employer (at the time of your application).

5. 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 one month of the Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

6. You must work with your supervisor to formulate and implement a Personal Development Plan designed to address the shortcomings in the following areas of your practice:
• Professional boundaries
• Knowledge and understanding of the HCPC document

“Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics” with particular regard to Standards:
“1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

7. You must use your best endeavours to ensure that the HCPC is provided with a report as to your progress in relation to your PDP 14 days prior to the review of this order.

Notes

The Order imposed today will apply from 05 December 2020.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 05 December 2021.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Simon Trafford

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
01/12/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Conditions of Practice
30/10/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Suspended
04/11/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice