Ms Pauline E Pattinson

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. A Notice of Hearing dated 18 February 2022 was sent by email to the Registrant’s registered email address. The notice gave the date, time, and details for attending the (remote) hearing and details of the purpose of the hearing. The Panel was shown an email delivery receipt and a Certificate to confirm the Registrant’s email address.
2. The Panel was satisfied that in those circumstances good service of the Notice of Hearing had taken place for the purposes of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended by the HCPC (Coronavirus)(Amendment) Rules Order in Council 2021 (“the 2003 Rules”).

Proceeding in Absence
3. Ms Welsh on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.
4. Ms Welsh referred to the principles set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. She confirmed that all reasonable steps had been taken to provide the Registrant with the Notice of Hearing and engage with her prior to today. She highlighted to the Panel that the Registrant had not engaged at all with the process nor attended the Substantive Hearing. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.
5. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant. In exercising its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into account the following matters: that this was a mandatory review hearing; the Registrant’s period of suspension was due to expire on 18 April 2022; the Registrant had been given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to attend; the Registrant had not requested an adjournment, and any adjournment was unlikely to result in the Registrant attending a hearing at a later date. The Panel recognised it had to balance fairness both to the Registrant and the Regulator, as well as the wider public interest which all justified the expeditious disposal of the case.
6. In view of those considerations, the Panel decided that it was fair in all the circumstances to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Proceeding in Private
7. The Panel considered the HCPC’s application to hold this hearing in private in terms of Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules, as the matters relied upon related solely to the Registrant’s health issues. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and considered the Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”, the Panel agreed to grant the application, having concluded that the right of the Registrant to protection of her private life and confidentiality of her health issues outweighed the general presumption of hearings being conducted in public.

Decision

8. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
9. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
10. The Panel was concerned today by the lack of any information directly from the Registrant herself whether in written representations or by attendance at the remote hearing. This meant there was nothing before the Panel that could enable it to conclude that there had been any meaningful change in the Registrant’s position since the substantive hearing. In fact, the only conclusion that the Panel can reach is that the positioned has worsened. This is because the Registrant is 12 months further removed from actual practice with no evidence of any continuing professional development. The Panel took into account the fact that the Registrant has a persuasive burden to satisfy the Panel that she is no longer impaired.
11. In these circumstances the Panel determined that the Registrant remained impaired under the personal component. This is because of the serious implications of the Registrant’s long-standing health problems and their likely impact upon her performance as an ODP. There has been no evidence placed before the Panel from which it could conclude that there has been any improvement in her health nor that any remediation has taken place since the previous hearing.
12. The Panel considered the three elements of the public component. It did not go behind the findings of the previous panel. The Panel considered the need for the public to have confidence in the registrants they are treated by. The Panel also took into account the fact that the public should be able to rely on the regulatory process to be robust, fair and transparent.
13. The Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired under the public component. The Panel determined that the public would not be reassured by the Registrant’s lack of engagement. The Panel found that the public would not have confidence in circumstances where the Registrant has a significant health condition and no positive evidence about how it was being managed.
14. Due to the important requirement, to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession these would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in this case.
15. The Panel has had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards.
16. In considering the available sanctions today, the Panel considered the options in ascending order of gravity in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy.
17. The Panel determined that taking no action, mediation and a Caution Order would not be appropriate in this case for the reasons articulated by the previous panel.
18. As the Registrant has not engaged nor provided any evidence to the Panel it determined that no workable conditions of practice could be formulated.
19. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order for 12 months is the appropriate sanction. Suspension is required, in view of the seriousness of the Registrant’s health condition, in order to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. This will give her the opportunity to access the support and help she needs.
20. A Striking Off Order cannot be made in respect of an allegation relating to health, unless the Registrant has been continuously suspended, or subject to conditions of practice, for a period of two years at the date of the decision. Accordingly, a Striking Off Order may not be made by the Panel today.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Pauline Pattinson for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 16 April 2023.

History of Hearings for Ms Pauline E Pattinson