Ms Yasmin Beesley
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 email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegations against the registrant are as follows:
Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as a Paramedic and during the course of your employment with the East Midlands
Ambulance Service, you:
1. On 5 January 2018, while operating as a solo responder, attended an incident where there was a query regarding sepsis and you:
a) did not book mobile for approximately 5 minutes after you were allocated the job;
b) reviewed the patient whilst you stood at the door of the ambulance;
c) did not undertake and/or record:
i . your own observations;
ii. your own physical assessment of the patient;
d) did not identify and / or treat sepsis
f) did not give the patient fluids
g) did not cannulate the patient
h) despite the presence of three red flags relating to sepsis:
i. left the emergency technician to ride in the back of the ambulance with the patient;
ii. did not travel with the patient to hospital;
i) did not complete a patient report form;
j) spent only approximately 8 minutes on the scene with the patient
2. On 6 January 2018, failed to respond to an allocated emergency call in a timely manner in that you:
a) did not travel to the scene of the emergency by the shortest route;
b) did not activate the blue lights when the call was allocated;
c) went to the scene via the ambulance station without good reason and/or permission from the EOC to do so.
3. The matters described in paragraphs 1 and 2 amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
4. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Remote hearing conducted via video-link
1. In line with the current guidance from HM Government in relation to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic, this hearing was conducted by video conference in accordance with Rule 2A of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) Rules 2003, as amended (the Rules).
Notice of Hearing
2. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Registrant was sent a Notice of Hearing by email on 23 August 2021; confirmation of electronic delivery to the Registrant’s registered email address was received. The Registrant’s representative was also sent a copy of the Notice of Hearing on the same date. The Panel was satisfied that the date of the Notice of Hearing falls within the statutory time limit of 28 days under Rule 6(2) of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003, (the Rules), and also provides the day, time and venue (specifically that the hearing would be conducted via video conference), as required by Rule 6(1) of the Rules.
3. For the above reasons, the Panel has determined that there is good service of the Notice of Hearing.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
4. Mr D’Alton, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence under Rule 11 of the Rules. He referred the Panel to an email dated 10 September 2021 from the Registrant’s representative which stated, “Please can you take this email as written confirmation that myself and Yasmin Beesley will NOT be attending the hearing on 22nd September 2021.” Mr D’Alton submitted that the email was a clear indication that the Registrant had waived her right to attend the hearing today.
5. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence. While the Panel is aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of a registrant is one to be taken with great care and caution, the Panel has decided to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. In reaching its decision the Panel had regard to the following matters:
• Service of the appropriate notice of this hearing has been properly effected.
• The Registrant’s representative has indicated clearly by email dated 10 September 2021 that neither she nor the Registrant will be attending the hearing today.
• Although the Notice of Hearing refers to this being a hearing to review the substantive Suspension Order, the Panel had sight of a telephone log between the HCPC Case Manager and the Registrant’s representative on 8 September 2021 which recorded, “[The Case Manager] told [the Registrant’s representative] that the coming Substantive Review hearing can potentially be held as a VRA hearing, if the Registrant wishes to pursue that option. [The Registrant’s representative] confirmed that the Registrant does.” The Panel was satisfied, on the information before it, that the Registrant is aware of the nature and purpose of today’s hearing. The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment or sought to object to this hearing proceeding in her absence.
• The Registrant is fully aware of this hearing, has made an informed decision not to participate and, in the Panel’s view, has voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing.
• The Registrant has engaged with the HCPC, via her representative, in relation to this matter and this is a hearing of the Registrant’s own application for Voluntary Removal from the Register.
• The HCPC consents to the Registrant’s Voluntary Removal from the Register.
• There would be limited risk of prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant if the hearing proceeds today.
• The matter has been ongoing for over three years (since the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC in April 2018) and there is a public interest with the matter proceeding without further delay.
6. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic.
7. The Registrant joined the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) on 3 March 2008 as a Trainee Technician and progressed to the role of Paramedic in 2012.
8. On 6 January 2018 the Emergency Operations Centre reported that earlier that day the Registrant and her crew mate had failed to respond. to a 999 call in a timely manner and to follow a management instruction. On 11 January 2018 DF, Duty Operations Manager was appointed to undertake an investigation into the matter. During the course of the investigation DF was told that the previous day, 5 January 2018, the Registrant had attended a Service User following a request for paramedic back up from a technician crew but failed to assess the Service User or to travel to hospital with him. The scope of the investigation was therefore widened to include this allegation.
9. On 13 April 2018 the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC in advance of her disciplinary hearing which took place on 20 April 2018.
10. The matter of the Voluntary Removal was first raised on 26 June 2019 in a telephone call with the HCPC. The Registrant informed the HCPC that she had not practised for 18 months at that time and had no intention of practising as a registered Paramedic again.
11. On 3 February 2021 a panel of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on the statutory ground of misconduct arising from the facts as found proved and imposed a Suspension Order for a period of eight months.
12. The Registrant did not attend that hearing and was not represented at it. The panel at the Final Hearing recorded in its determination that the Registrant had made it clear that she had no intention of returning to practice as a registered Paramedic and wished to be voluntarily removed from the Register. The panel made the following comments:
“The Panel is well aware that the Registrant has asked the HCPC to remove her name from the Register on more than one occasion. However, a period of reflection following this hearing may cause the Registrant to reconsider and the Panel considers it appropriate to leave that option open. This represents an opportunity for the Registrant to demonstrate that she is able to bring her professional performance up to an acceptable standard and return to practice if that is what she wishes to do. Alternatively, if she remains determined to leave the profession, a short period of suspension would allow the Registrant to apply for Voluntary Removal from the Register which would be a more proportionate way to end her career than an order striking her name from the Register.”
13. In February 2021, following the final hearing, the HCPC Case Manager explored voluntary removal with the Registrant and her representative. In an email dated 11 February 2021, the Registrant’s representative stated, “Ms Beesley has not practised as a paramedic for around 3 years and has no intention of practising as a paramedic in the future.”
14. On 19 April 2021, the HCPC sent the Registrant’s representative documents pursuant to the request for removal.
15. On 30 April 2021, the Registrant’s representative responded to the HCPC, confirming the Registrant’s position to pursue voluntary removal.
16. The HCPC subsequently obtained internal approvals to dispose of the case by way of removal and sent the Registrant the Voluntary Removal Agreement for signing on 10 September 2021.
17. The Registrant’s representative returned a copy of the Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA), signed by the Registrant, on 10 September 2021.
18. The purpose of today’s hearing is for the Panel to consider a joint application from the HCPC and the Registrant to dispose of this matter by consent. Should the Panel agree to a consent order, in line with the VRA, it would allow the Registrant to be removed from the Register and the HCPC would take no further action in respect of the current fitness to practise matters.
19. In coming to its decision, the Panel considered all of the material before it, namely the HCPC’s Consent Bundle of 56 pages which included the HCPC Skeleton Argument of 17 September 2021 in support of the VRA and provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing; the communication logs between the Registrant’s representative and the HCPC; and the signed copy of the VRA.
20. The Panel had regard to Mr D’Alton’s oral submissions and to the written submissions set out in the Skeleton Argument. Mr D’Alton confirmed the HCPC’s position that voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving this matter and that granting the application would not compromise the protection of the public or have any detrimental effect on the wider public interest. He submitted that public protection would be ensured as the VRA is equivalent, in effect, to a striking off order. The Registrant would no longer be registered as a Paramedic and has confirmed that she does not intend to practise as one in the future. Mr D’Alton also submitted that the public would not be concerned, nor would public confidence in the profession be put at risk, should the Panel grant this voluntary removal agreement in circumstances where the Registrant has accepted the allegations made and that her fitness to practise is impaired.
21. Mr D’Alton further submitted that the Registrant has been provided with detailed information about the consent process and the effect of voluntary removal from the Register, should the application be granted. He submitted that the Registrant has had time to review this information and query its implications with the HCPC.
22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The process of disposing of a case by way of consent is an extra-statutory means of concluding a matter. However, before agreeing to such a course the Panel reminded itself that it has to be certain that, by adopting this process, there is the appropriate level of public protection and that to conclude this matter in this way would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel applied its own judgment and had regard to the content of the HCPTS Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. It had particular regard to the following part of the Practice Note:
“In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the registrant was permitted to resign from the Register, it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the registrant had been struck off.”
23. The Panel noted the contents of the correspondence between the Registrant’s representative and the HCPC, and considered that her stated desire to leave the Register has been consistent between 2019 and today’s date. It noted the information provided to the HCPC on 11 February 2021 that, “[the Registrant] has employment in a job that is completely unrelated to health care and has the intention to remain there till retirement.” On 19 April 2021 the HCPC sent the consent process documentation to the Registrant’s representative. This set out in detail the two options available to the Registrant, namely either addressing the ongoing fitness to practise concerns at a substantive order review hearing; alternatively, if the Registrant did not wish to return to practice, the letter explained the process by which she may be voluntarily removed from the HCPC Register. In light of all the information before it, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s wish for her name to be voluntarily removed from the Register was a considered and informed decision on her part.
24. The Panel noted from the documents that the Registrant has admitted the Allegation as part of the VRA. The Registrant has also signed a Declaration that there is no other matter of which the Registrant is aware which might give rise to any other allegation under the Health Professions Order 2001.
25. The Panel was mindful of its overarching objective of protection of the public and the public interest. The Panel therefore considered whether there were any factors that would make it undesirable to allow the Allegation to be concluded on the consensual basis set out in the VRA.
26. The Panel noted that the HCPC was satisfied that it would be meeting its statutory objective of protecting the public if the Registrant were permitted to be removed from the Register. She would not be able to apply to be re-admitted to the Register for a period of at least 5 years. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be adequately protected if this Suspension Order were revoked, and the Registrant were permitted to have her name removed from the Register and leave the profession in accordance with the terms of the VRA.
27. The Panel was also satisfied that there are no overriding public interest factors that would make disposal of this case by VRA inappropriate. The Panel was of the view that the public would not be concerned, nor would public confidence in the profession be put at risk, should the Panel grant this VRA in circumstances where the matter has previously been ventilated at a public hearing, which resulted in a finding of impaired fitness to practise and, consequently, a sanction of a Suspension Order for a period of 8 months. It did not consider that it was in the public interest or in the Registrant’s own interest to be in a review cycle when she no longer intends to practise as a Paramedic.
28. The Panel was aware that if the Registrant seeks to return to the HCPC Register at any time in the future, her application would be treated as if she had been removed from the Register for a period of 5 years as a result of the Allegation.
29. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that both the public and the wider public interest would be adequately protected by the terms of the Agreement reached between the Registrant and the HCPC. In addition, the Panel was satisfied that this means of disposal of this case is appropriate and proportionate and is jointly in the interests of the public, the HCPC and the Registrant.
30. Accordingly, the Panel approves the VRA to revoke the current Suspension Order (the Existing Order) to enable the Registrant to be removed from the Register. The Chair of the Panel has signed the attached Notice of Withdrawal which will take immediate effect, a copy of which has been dated today.
Order: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Yasmin Beesley from the Register with immediate effect.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Ms Yasmin Beesley
|Outcomes / Status
|Conduct and Competence Committee
|Voluntary Removal agreed
|Conduct and Competence Committee