Mr Clive Gill

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA35020

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 07/09/2020 End: 17:00 08/09/2020

Location: Hearing taking place virtually

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Caution

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

As a registered Paramedic (PA35020) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:

1. On or around 30 March 2019, you sent an unprofessional email to colleagues using Trust ICT systems with regards to Patient A, in which you stated:

a) “I have not sent this email to all staff, as I hope you lot will have the decency to contact me with your objections rather than Datix me”, or words to that effect;
b) “Ask any Keighton Crew about her, as she is infamous”, or words to that effect;
c) “It disgusts me that crews are tied up dealing with this parasite”, or words to that effect;
d) “Seems to be fine when talking and chatting on entonox, has 2 working arms and another foot to stand on”, or words to that effect;
e) “My thought is that she gets bored, puts herself gently onto the floor, pushes her pendant and her nearby mum comes running…”, or words to that effect;
f) “She then drains 1-2 cylinders of entonox whilst RRV awaits Hot2 which can be up to 2 hours of her getting high”, or words to that effect;
g) “As far as I am aware nobody has ever died from lack of attention and Entonox”, or words to that effect;
h) “She is addicted to attention and Entonox”, or words to that effect;
i) “It’s attention driven nonsense and crazy to send an RRV round in 8 mins to wait 2 hours for a Hot2 for a fake seizure/non-injury”, or words to that effect;
j) “I am aware that a massive dose of morphine or potassium would resolve the problem”, or words to that effect.

2. In relation to your actions referred to in paragraphs 1a to 1j, you disclosed confidential information about Patient A, to work colleagues.

3. The matters set out in paragraph’s 1 and 2 above constitute misconduct.

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

Finding

Preliminary matters

Additional documentation

  1. Prior to the start of the hearing, the Registrant provided the Panel with the following additional information:
       

          i.    Witness statement of AS, Paramedic, dated 28 August 2020;

          ii.   Witness statement of CC, dated 01 September 2020;

          iii.  An unsigned statement from CH dated 03 September 2020;

          iv.  A reference letter, dated 26 August 2020, from DH, Leading Operations Manager for East of England Ambulance Service;

          v.   Witness statement of GT, dated 02 September 2020;

          vi.  Witness statement of JS, Paramedic, dated 01 September 2020;

          vii. Witness statement of JW, Paramedic, dated (undated);

          viii. Email reference from LM, dated 02 September 2020;

          ix.  Witness statement of LC, dated 01 September 2020;

          x.   Witness statement of LF, dated 30 August 2020;

          xi.  Witness statement of MR, dated 30 August 2020;

          xii.  Email reference from NS, Emergency Medical Technician, dated 02 September 2020;

          xiii. Witness statement of NO, Paramedic, dated 03 September 2020;

          xiv. Email reference from NP, Paramedic, dated 30 August 2020;

          xv.  A reference letter from PW, Paramedic, dated 07 August 2020;

          xvi. Witness statement of RT, dated 29 August 2020;

          xvii. Witness statement of SR, dated 29 August 2020; and

          xviii. A Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) Log outlining the Registrant’s CPD between 2014 and 2020.

     

  2. The Panel read the papers prior to the start of the hearing.

    Background

  3. The Registrant is, and was at the relevant times, registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’) as a Paramedic. The Registrant is currently employed by East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) as a Paramedic, a position he has held since July 2015.

  4. In early April 2019, a copy of an email chain instigated by the Registrant was left anonymously in the pigeon-hole of a Locality Operation Manager (‘LOM’). In the email, the Registrant expressed his frustration at the need to attend 'frequent' emergency calls to a vulnerable service user (Patient A). The email had been sent to a select group of staff, 63 in total. It is claimed, by the HCPC, that the email used derogatory language to describe Patient A, included her name and home address and suggested a course of action for his colleagues to follow when it came to Patient A. On 14 May 2019, Head of Quality Improvement and Professional standards, LA, was allocated as the Investigating Officer for the matter.

  5. The Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC on 25 April 2019.

    Decision on Facts

    Person LA
  6. Person LA told the Panel that he is currently employed by the Trust as Head of Quality Improvement and Professional Standards, a position that he had held since December 2015. He also told the Panel that in addition to the aforementioned role, he is also a practising Paramedic and covering double staff ambulances. Person LA informed the Panel that he is also the Tactical Commander and Specialist Marauding Terrorist Attack Commander and that he had been employed by the Trust for 23 years and qualified as a Paramedic 15 years ago.

  7. Person LA stated that the Registrant had been employed by the Trust since 01 July 2015 as a Paramedic. He told the Panel that the Registrant, as a qualified Paramedic, may work as a solo responder or on a double staffed ambulance to provide clinical supervision and support. Person LA told the Panel that the Registrant is also responsible for leading the response to emergency or urgent calls, attending to patients, assessing them through collaborative decision making and choosing an appropriate onward pathway for that patient.

  8. Person LA told the Panel that in April 2019 he was approached by SK, Section Head for the area, and asked whether he had capacity to conduct an investigation as an email chain had been anonymously placed inside a pigeon-hole outside the LOM’s office. The email was purportedly written by the Registrant. The LOM had concerns about the email and escalated it to their own line manager before completing a DATIX report. Person LA stated that he was told that the email contained patient identifiable information and that there were concerns about the language used about the patient and the advice and views being expressed.

  9. Person LA told the Panel that as part of his investigation he checked whether the Registrant had personally sent the email. LA confirmed that he had personally checked the Registrant’s email account and found that the email had come from the Registrant's email account and that it had been sent at approximately 12:57pm, whilst the Registrant was on shift and on his last and fourth in a row of night-shifts.

  10. Person LA told the Panel that prior to conducting his investigation he knew nothing of Patient A. He stated that given that the Registrant claimed that Patient A was a frequent caller he went into the Trust’s online portal to complete a retrospective search of how many incidents had been called involving Patient A and the type of call. Person LA confirmed, to the Panel, that there had been a number of calls to Patient A’s address, but that it was not for him to confirm whether the calls were appropriate or not. Person LA informed the Panel that he could not recall how many times the Registrant had attended Patient A but he did know that it was more than once.

  11. Person LA informed the Panel that the Trust have a ‘Frequent Caller Team’, whereby staff can raise concerns about the number of call-outs to a patient which are being made, or if there is a pattern to the 999 emergency calls and that the referrals, to this team, can come from a wide range of clinicians including call handlers, General Practitioners (G.P.) and Paramedics. He told the Panel that clinicians could raise their concerns with the Frequent Caller Lead, who could then decide to take the matter to a leadership Multi-Disciplinary Team (‘MDT’) meeting for discussion where a number of steps could be taken, including having conversations with the patient's G.P. or other caregivers to try and identify how the patient can be best supported in order to reduce the number of 999 calls.

  12. Person LA told the Panel that in his interview with the Registrant he had explored with the Registrant what other actions he had taken to raise his concerns about Person A. Person LA stated, in his evidence to the Panel, that the Registrant had submitted a referral about Patient A to the Frequent Caller Team two days prior to his email and he attempted to explore with the Registrant whether he felt that he had given the Frequent Caller Team sufficient time to act on his complaint before sending his email. Person LA also confirmed that he had checked the DATIX reporting system and established that two reports had been made regarding Patient A, one by the Registrant and the other by another member of staff.

  13. Person LA also told the Panel that clinicians within the Trust have a way of adding notes through the control room and IT infrastructure, which he confirmed that the Registrant had been doing. Person LA stated that from speaking with the Registrant, during his investigation, the Registrant appeared frustrated that despite his notes on the system the concerns were not being acted on to his satisfaction. Person LA also confirmed that the Frequent Caller Team had failed to pick up on the Registrant’s notes on the system and this had been an organisational learning point.

  14. Person LA told the Panel that when he first reviewed the Registrant’s email it was clear to him that Patient A was being discussed because her name and address had been included. Person LA also gave evidence to the Panel that in his professional opinion, the language used by the Registrant to speak about Patient A as a ‘parasite’ and saying things like ‘it disgusts him’ and ‘…a massive dose of morphine or potassium would resolve the problem...’ was unprofessional and unacceptable. He told the Panel that large doses of morphine or potassium would be potentially fatal to a patient.

  15. Person LA also told the Panel that in his opinion, some of the Registrant’s statements, in his emails, demonstrated that he had made assumptions about Person A’s condition. For example where the Registrant had stated ‘…observations were normal for someone in so much pain…she is a drain on the NHS resources…’.Person LA told the Panel that this sort of language was not something that the Ambulance Service would expect of its staff when speaking about a patient and if Patient A were to know that she was being spoken about this way it would cause her significant distress. Further, in answer to a question from Mr Foxsmith, Person LA told the Panel that whilst this email could have caused other clinicians to have a preformed view of Patient A prior to arriving at the scene and assessing her. Person LA did not consider it likely as there was a duty on Paramedics to undertake a thorough assessment when arriving at a scene.

  16. Person LA also told the Panel that what stood out for him was that the emails had continued over a number of days as the Registrant had responded to colleagues when they had replied to him and that this continued engagement demonstrated that there had not been any reflection of the propriety of his email after it was sent.

  17. Person LA gave evidence to the Panel that, when he interviewed the Registrant, he admitted sending the emails and acknowledged that it was not the correct thing to have done. Person LA told the Panel that there was no confrontation during his meeting with the Registrant and he had no concerns about his interaction; the Registrant was open, clear and engaged in the investigation process fully. Person LA also told the Panel that the Registrant answered all of his questions to the best of his ability and that the matter had been straightforward to investigate, especially considering that he had provided a written statement confirming that he had sent the email and expressing his reasons for doing so.

  18. The Panel found Person LA to be a credible and reliable witness. The Panel had no reason to doubt his recollection of events. His oral evidence was consistent with his witness statement and accompanying exhibits. If he was unable to recollect a particular matter or provide clarity for the Panel, he said so and he provided reasons for any views he expressed. He also provided a balanced view of the Registrant’s conduct at work and informed the Panel that the Registrant had never had any previous concerns raised about his conduct, nor any since the incident.


    Registrant


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

  20. The Registrant gave evidence before the Panel. He told the Panel that he self-referred to the HCPC on 25 April 2019 and accepted sending emails, at the end of March 2019, to his colleagues.

  21. He told the Panel that when he read the emails, he had sent he looked back with “horror” and stated that it was a “grave error of judgement”. He told the Panel that whilst he was trying to inject “crew room banter” and “black humour” into the emails, to evoke a response from his colleagues, he accepted that his terminology did not look good. The Registrant also told the Panel that he had not meant for the email to be malicious in any way; he had sent it more in frustration with the systems in place. He told the Panel that he had felt that he had tried to go through the appropriate channels, by completing screen notes, DATIX reports and by raising the issue with the Frequent Caller Team, and he and his colleagues were all aware that the number of calls to Patient A’s house were not diminishing and things felt like they were just “going around in circles”. He told the Panel that after his fifth twelve-hour night shift in a row he had a conversation with his manager regarding Patient A, and his manager had informed him that whilst he was completing the requisite notes, his colleagues were not and this made him very angry and he “overreacted and fired off the email”. The Registrant told the Panel that his email was intended to “rally the troops and it backfired”. The Registrant told the Panel that at the point at which he sent the email he felt that other people were not getting their “fair response because we were frequently tied up with Patient A”.

  22. The Registrant accepted, when matters were put to him, that the language in his emails were inappropriate and unprofessional. The Registrant told the Panel when asked why he had used the language that he did that "I think it was an attempt at failed humour, it was a misjudgement on my part… I was trying to get them [colleagues] to do something”. He informed the Panel that he is naturally a jovial character and that, by attempting to inject some humour into his email, he thought he might provoke a response. He told the Panel that at the time he sent the emails, he was not “thinking straight” and that he had sent a similar email to his managers stating almost the same things, without the inappropriate language and humour outlined within it, in an attempt to find a resolution to the situation for Patient A.

  23. The Registrant also accepted, during his evidence, that he had sent the email to individuals whom he believed were his work colleagues, but since sending the emails he has been made aware that the format he had used was not a secure format but he had, at the time, been under the misapprehension that it was a secure work system. He told the Panel that he had since learned that whilst the emails had not been sent externally to “Hotmail accounts”, he had needed to add ‘net’ to the emails to ensure their secure location.

  24. The Registrant told the Panel that since the incident he had felt great shame, particularly with his colleagues and trainees, and remorse for his actions. He also stated that he had found it particularly hard to explain to his wife, family and friends why he had been suspended from work for a period of five months while the matter was investigated by his employer and reiterated his remorse and regret at the incident, identifying the harm that could have been caused to Patient A, the public's perception of him and also the wider profession.

  25. The Registrant told the Panel that since the incident he had completed in excess of 100 hours of Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’), with a particular focus on mental health management and has undertaken some reflective practice around the case in question. He also told the Panel that since returning to work, he has attended to Patient A on a number of occasions, stating that she had been his last visit before going onto rest days prior to the hearing commencing, and that he had always sought to give her the best care possible and would continue to do so. The Registrant told the Panel that since reflecting on the incident he has learnt that he needed to work as part of the wider team and to trust the system that is in place. He stated that working as a first responder he had become somewhat isolated as he did not have a colleague to chat to regularly and he has learnt that he does not need to “bottle things up” and can talk to colleagues and managers to voice his concerns.

  26. The Registrant also informed the Panel that he had never been the subject of a complaint regarding his practice, or behaviour, prior to or since the incident.

  27. The Panel found the Registrant to be honest, open and credible. The Panel noted that his evidence was consistent with the written statement he had provided to his employer and the responses he provided during the investigation by Person LA. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant was very forthcoming in the answers he provided.

    Panel’s Approach 

  28. 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.
  29. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the oral evidence of the HCPC witness, the Registrant, the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundles as well as the oral submissions made by Mr Foxsmith on behalf of the HCPC, and those made by Ms McCullough on behalf of the Registrant.

  30. The Panel also had regard to the fact that the Registrant admitted Particulars 1a) - 1j), 2 and 3 contained within the Allegation and took his admissions into account when determining the facts of the case.

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


    Particular 1


    As a registered Paramedic (PA35020) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that

    1. On or around 30 March 2019, you sent an unprofessional email to colleagues using Trust ICT systems with regards to Patient A, in which you stated:

    a) “I have not sent this email to all staff, as I hope you lot will have the decency to contact me with your objections rather than Datix me”, or words to that effect;
    b) “Ask any Keighton Crew about her, as she is infamous”, or words to that effect;
    c) “It disgusts me that crews are tied up dealing with this parasite”, or words to that effect;
    d) “Seems to be fine when talking and chatting on entonox, has 2 working arms and another foot to stand on”, or words to that effect;
    e) “My thought is that she gets bored, puts herself gently onto the floor, pushes her pendant and her nearby mum comes running…”, or words to that effect;
    f) “She then drains 1-2 cylinders of entonox whilst RRV awaits Hot2 which can be up to 2 hours of her getting high”, or words to that effect;
    g) “As far as I am aware nobody has ever died from lack of attention and Entonox”, or words to that effect;
    h) “She is addicted to attention and Entonox”, or words to that effect;
    i) “It’s attention driven nonsense and crazy to send an RRV round in 8 mins to wait 2 hours for a Hot2 for a fake seizure/non-injury”, or words to that effect;
    j) “I am aware that a massive dose of morphine or potassium would resolve the problem”, or words to that effect.

  32. The Panel noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant was employed as a Paramedic for the Trust at the time of the incident. The Panel also noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant had sent emails to his colleagues using the Trust ICT systems on the dates outlined.
  33. The Panel noted that the Registrant had accepted Particulars 1a) - 1j) in their entirety both at the start of the hearing and during the course of his oral evidence.
  34. The Panel noted that Person LA informed it that he had conducted a check of the Trust ICT systems and confirmed that the Registrant had sent the emails to colleagues and the Panel noted that the Registrant accepted his actions during the Trust’s investigation and interview.
  35. The Panel had regard to the contents of the documents contained within the HCPC bundle and noted that each of the comments contained within Particulars 1a) -1j) were contained within the emails.
  36. The Panel was therefore satisfied that Particulars 1a) – 1j) are proved.

    Particular 2

    2.  In relation to your actions referred to in paragraphs 1a to 1j, you disclosed confidential information about Patient A, to work colleagues.


  37. The Panel noted that the Registrant had accepted Particular 2 at the start of the hearing and during the course of his oral evidence.

  38. Person LA, during the course of his evidence, told the Panel that the Registrant had included personal information, regarding Patient A, in his email which he had sent to colleagues not directly involved in her care.

  39. The Panel also had regard to the ‘Electronic Communications Use Policy’ of the Trust, which was provided as an exhibit by Person LA and noted that the Registrant had not acted in accordance with the sections 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.11 and 5.3.

  40. Consequently, the Panel were satisfied that the Registrant had disclosed confidential information about Patient A to work colleagues.

  41. Accordingly, Particular 2 is found proved.

    Decision on Grounds

  42. Having found Particulars 1a) -1j) and 2 proved, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct.

    Panel's Approach

  43. The Panel took into account the oral submissions made by the parties and the Registrant’s evidence.

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

    Misconduct

  45. 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.”

  46. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepted that his actions amounted to misconduct. Notwithstanding the Registrant’s admission however, the Panel considered whether any of the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

  47. 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;

    2-    communicate appropriately and effectively; and

    3-    respect confidentiality.

  48. The Panel also found breaches of the following parts of the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (dated September 2014):

  49. 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 Paramedic.

  50. Whilst the Panel accepted that the Registrant’s explanation for sending the emails was that he was angry and frustrated at the lack of action regarding Patient A’s care, and also accepted that he mistakenly tried to inject humour into his emails to instigate a response from colleagues, the Panel was concerned by the contents of the Registrant's emails. In particular, the comments that Patient A was a "parasite” and that “a massive dose of morphine or potassium would resolve the problem”.

  51. The Panel were also concerned that in sending the emails to colleagues the Registrant disclosed confidential information about Patient A.

  52. The Registrant, in sending the emails, showed a complete disregard for how his words and actions may have impacted Patient A and her family should they have become aware of their contents, and the reputational damage to his employer, profession and colleagues.

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

  54. The Panel found that Particulars 1a) – 1j) and 2 each amounted to misconduct.


    Decision on Impairment

  55. Having found misconduct the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired.

  56. The Panel took into account all of the evidence, the submissions made by Mr Foxsmith and Ms McCullough, the oral and written submissions provided by the Registrant and the written testimonials provided by the Registrant.

  57. 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:

    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.

  58.  The Panel noted the HCPC submission that the Registrant was not currently impaired on the personal component. The Panel shared this view.

  59. It was explained to the Panel, by Person LA during his evidence, that the Trust had taken the decision not to disclose the incident to Patient A because the view was taken that it would cause unnecessary harm and distress, to Patient A, and would not be in her overall best interests. The Panel noted therefore that there had been no direct harm caused to Patient A in this case.

  60. The Panel also noted that since the incident had occurred the Registrant had been subject to a significant period of suspension by the Trust. He had been forced to explain his actions to colleagues, students, family and friends and had told the Panel that this experience had been a salutary one for him. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that he was remorseful and apologetic for his actions and that he could see that this incident had been a mistake and that it could have had detrimental implications for Patient A, the wider profession and also public confidence in him as a practitioner. The Panel also accepted that the Registrant now understood the appropriate channels and methods by which to express any concerns and that his attempts to inject humour into a sensitive and confidential matter were not appropriate.

  61. The Panel further noted that the Registrant had undertaken a significant amount of CPD and had reflected extensively on his actions. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s exemplary record and the fact that this was the first complaint he had ever received. The Panel also had regard to the testimonials provided, which stated that the Registrant was an able practitioner, a caring individual and that this incident was highly out of character for him.

  62. Taking all of the aforementioned into account, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct was unlikely to ever be repeated.

  63. 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.

  64. 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 Registrant’s conduct. The Panel was also satisfied that there was a need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Paramedic 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.
  65. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired on public interest grounds.

    Decision on Sanction

  66. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Foxsmith and Ms McCullough. The Panel also referred to the “Indicative Sanctions Policy” issued by the HCPC.

  67. The Panel had in mind that the purpose of a sanction 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.

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

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

    I. had sent an email in an un-secure format to 63 colleagues; and

    II.        his comments would be seen by the public and his colleagues as deeply offensive;

  70. The Panel considered the following mitigating factors and found that:

    I.        the Registrant had an unblemished Paramedic career, with no previous disciplinary record;

    II.        the Registrant had provided numerous character references all of whom spoke highly of the Registrant. The Panel noted that the references had been provided by managers and colleagues;

    III.        the Registrant had co-operated fully with the Trust investigation and with the HCPC regulatory process;

    IV.        the Registrant had acknowledged at an early stage that his conduct had been entirely inappropriate;

    V.        the Registrant had demonstrated great insight and remorse for the potential impact on Patient A and had taken a number of significant steps to learn and develop himself as a practitioner;

    VI.        there was no identified patient harm; and

    VII.        no further complaints made against the Registrant.

  71. The Panel was of the view that this was not an appropriate case for mediation.

  72. In light of the misconduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action since this would not address the public interest concerns outlined by the Panel.

  73. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. The Panel noted the following:

    i.        this was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career;

    ii.        there was a very low risk of repetition;

    iii.        the Registrant has demonstrated excellent insight into his conduct; and

    iv.        the Registrant has undertaken appropriate and detailed remediation.



  74. In all of the circumstances of this case, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose to meet the public interest concerns.

  75. In considering the length of the Caution Order, the Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy and concluded that the Order should be imposed for a period of one year. This effectively balanced the seriousness of the misconduct with the Registrant’s interests and met the overarching need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

  76. Having concluded that a Caution Order was the appropriate sanction to impose, the Panel considered whether the next available sanction, namely a Conditions of Practice Order, was appropriate. The Panel concluded that, given that the Panel’s finding was made on public interest grounds alone, a Conditions of Practice Order which focuses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate.

  77. Given that a Conditions of Practice Order was inappropriate, the Panel considered whether to impose the sanction of Suspension. However, the Panel concluded that such a sanction, which would prevent the Registrant from practising for a period of up to 12 months, would be disproportionate and unduly punitive. The Panel did not consider that the public interest required that the public and the profession be deprived of an otherwise competent Paramedic who had recognised and addressed his isolated failing and who had continued to practise safely.

  78. The Panel accordingly determined to impose a Caution Order for a period of one year.

                           

 

 

 

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry of Mr Clive Gill with a caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 1 year from the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Clive Gill

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
07/09/2020 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Caution