Judit Magyar
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 Physiotherapist (PH110939) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of lack of competence. In that:
1. Between 08 May 2017 and 06 June 2018, you did not complete records to the required standard, in that;
a. On 04 July 2017, you recorded information relating to Service User A in the record of Service user B
b. You did not record sufficient detail in the records of Service Users set out in Schedule A,
c. You did not record appropriate outcome measures for Service Users set out in Schedule B,
d. You did not include sufficient clinical reasoning in the records of the Service Users set out in Schedule C.
2. Between 08 May 2017 and 06 June 2018, you did not interpret service users records correctly, including not understanding abbreviations and important medical information.
3. Between 08 May 2017 and 06 June 2018, you did not act on important medical information.
4. Between 08 May 2017 and 06 June 2018, you did not appropriately use the assessments EMS and Tinneti.
5. Between 06 August 2017 and 15 March 2018, you were unable to gather subjective histories from the notes and /or directly from Service Users set out in Schedule D.
6. Between 08 May 2017 and 06 June 2018, your ability to understand spoken and written English Language was poor, and you were unable to communicate effectively with;
a. Staff,
7. Between 08 May 2017 and 04 January 2018, you did not follow the correct manual handling procedures when moving and transferring the Service Users set out in Schedule F.
8. On 08 August 2017, you did not ensure Service User J was wearing appropriate footwear when you completed a mobility assessment.
9. Between 25 October 2017 and 19 February 2018, you took a significantly long time to complete simple mobility assessments for the Service Users set out in Schedule G.
10. Between 12 March 2018 and 14 April 2018, you did not carry out follow-up tasks in activity logs for the Service Users set out in Scheduled H.
11. On 08 August 2018 you did not recognise that the walking aids had been set at the incorrect height for the Service Users set out in Schedule I.
12. The matters set out at allegations 1 - 11 above constitute lack of competence.
13. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing, in accordance with rule 3 of the Procedure Rules 2003 by email dated 20 January 2022, which has been received by the Registrant, according to her email reply of the same date.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. The Panel next considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and the guidance in: R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5, R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168, GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. In particular: the Panel must exercise utmost care and caution and consider all the circumstances of the case, when considering a decision to proceed in a Registrant’s absence, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC, and the interests of the public.
3. The Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed to hear the application in the absence of the Registrant because she is aware of the hearing and has waived her right to attend. Her email in response to the notice of hearing states: I hereby confirm that I do not wish to attend the hearing and I will not be represented. I am content for it to proceed in my absence.
4. The application before the Panel today arises from the Registrant’s request to be removed from the HCPC Register. An adjournment would simply prolong a stressful process for the Registrant for no useful purpose. It is in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interest for the hearing to proceed in her absence today under Rule 11.
Background
5. The Registrant is an HCPC registered Physiotherapist. On 21 June 2018 the Registrant informed the HCPC registrations team that she had attended a capability hearing at her workplace, Pilgrim Hospital, Boston (‘the Hospital’). It was decided to terminate her employment with eight weeks’ notice, and her last day of employment was 2 August 2018. The Registrant informed the HCPC that she was moving back to Hungary permanently and she requested to be voluntarily removed from the HCPC register.
6. On 5 July 2018 the HCPC received a referral from the Registrant’s employers United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (‘the Trust’), where the Registrant was employed as a physiotherapist. The concerns raised related to the Registrant’s clinical reasoning, language and communication difficulties, and the safe moving and handling of service users. The Trust informed the HCPC that performance concerns had initially come to light in June 2017, when the Registrant was found to have provided treatment to the wrong patient, written in the wrong patient notes and appeared to struggle to gather a full patient history. An action plan was put into place to address the Registrant’s performance, and she enrolled onto an English language skills course.
7. A review of the Registrant’s performance took place on 18 October 2017, at which the Trust found that the Registrant’s performance had not sufficiently improved and a decision was made to move to the formal stage of the capability process. On 1 February 2018 a formal capability meeting took place at which a new action plan was implemented, and the Registrant received weekly supervision which started on 12 February 2018. Following a further capability review meeting on 12 April 2018, the Trust deemed that the Registrant’s performance had not improved to the necessary standard for a Band 5 physiotherapist.
8. On 7 June 2018 a capability hearing took place and ultimately the decision was made to dismiss the Registrant. This was set out in a letter dated 8 June 2018, a copy of which was provided with the Trust’s referral to the HCPC. The Trust also provided the HCPC with a job description for a Band 5 physiotherapist, a letter dated 21 May 2018 inviting the Registrant to a capability hearing, a copy of the Trust’s Capability Policy and an Action Plan and Capability Report.
9. The Capability Report stated: “Particular concerns were surrounding patient safety i.e. treating the wrong patient and documenting in the wrong notes, struggling to gather a full history from the patient and the notes, including not understanding abbreviations and missing important medical information regarding raised troponin levels, Doppler studies and ECGs, vague problem lists and treatment plans, not writing SOAP notes and struggling to create SMART goals. There was also a communication problem where Judit’s English was not at a good enough level for her to liaise effectively with colleagues, listen or speak at board-round and communicate with patients.”
10. On 18 April 2019, the HCPC requested the Trust to provide a significant amount of information and the HCPC received the requisite notes and information in September 2019. On 30 April 2021 an Investigating Committee Panel decided that there was a case to answer, in respect of the above allegation and that the matter should be referred to a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee. On 10 May 2021 the Registrant requested a voluntary removal from the HCPC Register and returned a signed Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) on 21 January 2022. This is an agreement that the HCPC will not take any further action against the Registrant in relation to this matter on the understanding that she will remove herself from the HCPC Register, cease practising as a Physiotherapist and not attempt to re-join the Register. If the Registrant was to apply to come back on to the Register, her application would be treated in the same way as if she had been struck off the Register.
HCPC Submissions
11. The HCPC submits that the Health Professions Order 2001 does not explicitly provide for consent arrangements. There is a Practice Note that the HCPC has approved as a means of allowing matters, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent. The Practice Note states that a Panel should not agree to resolve a case in this way unless it is satisfied of two things: firstly, that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured and, secondly, that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. In the case of Cohen v GMC the High Court stated that there are “critically important public policy issues” which must be taken into account by Panels in fitness to practise proceedings, including the ‘public’ component of impairment. This ‘public’ component requires consideration of the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.
12. The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving this case. Voluntary removal is equivalent to a striking off order and the HCPC submits that the necessary public protection would be ensured by this course of action. The HCPC also submits that it would not be detrimental to the wider public interest to dispose of this matter by way of voluntary removal. This case does not raise concerns in regards to the wider public interest, to such an extent that the matter must be disposed of at a final hearing. The Registrant has admitted the substance of the Allegation and this disposal is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour. It is therefore submitted the VRA is an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with the matter.
Legal Assessor’s Advice
13. The VRA is an agreement between the HCPC and the Registrant. The principle terms of the agreement are that the HCPC proceedings will be concluded, on the basis of a signed request by the Registrant to be removed from the Register, and a commitment that the Registrant will cease and desist from practising and she will not attempt to re-join the Register within a period of 5 years.
14. If the Registrant were to apply to come back on to the Register, her application would be treated in the same way as if she had been struck off. Such a disposal is not provided for under The Health Professions Order 2001, however, there is an HCPTS Practice Note that the HCPC has approved, allowing matters, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent.
15. The Panel should not agree to resolve the case in this way unless it is satisfied that: the appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. The public will be protected in the same way as if a striking off order had been imposed on the Registrant by the Panel under Article 29 of the Health Professions Order 2001.
Decision
16. An HCPC Registrant who wishes to cease practice but has an outstanding allegation in relation to his or her fitness to practise, may enter into a VRA. The HCPC submits this is a proportionate and pragmatic way to dispose of this case in the public interest. The Registrant does not wish to continue to practise, and should be allowed to remove herself from the HCPC Register. This is a lack of competence case and is not so serious that a final hearing is required in order to maintain public confidence in the regulatory process or the profession. The Panel accepts the HCPC’s submissions and finds that a voluntary removal is consistent with the protection of the public; taking into account that the Registrant will be removed from the HCPC register in the same way as if as a striking off order had been made against her. She will not be able to return to practice for 5 years and will then have to apply to re-join the Register as if she had been struck-off.
17. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has admitted the allegations and accepted that her fitness to practise is currently impaired. She has requested a disposal by consent in relation to the current HCPC proceedings. It is in the public interest for the Panel to consent to the HCPC discontinuing the above proceedings against the Registrant by means of a VRA. This is the most expeditious way to deal with this matter and reflects the fact that the Registrant wishes to leave the profession and she has returned to Hungary. The VRA will not undermine public confidence in the profession or the regulator. The VRA is just and appropriate in this case and all the conditions have been satisfied for such a disposal. Overall the best outcome in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interest, is for her to be removed from the HCPC register voluntarily.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Miss Judit Magyar from the Register with immediate effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Judit Magyar
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |