Mr Deepak K Deshmukh

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel has seen evidence that on 05 October 2022, the Registrant was sent a Notice of Hearing to his registered email address, advising him of the date and time of the Substantive Review Hearing, and informing him that the review would be via video conference. A subsequent email was sent to confirm that the voluntary removal the Registrant was pursuing would be considered at the hearing taking place today.
2. Article 3 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021 amends the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 to allow for the service of documents via electronic mail.
3. Having accepted that the advice of the Legal Assessor the Panel found that good service had been effected.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

4. The HCPC applies for this hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel is aware that it has the power to proceed in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant. The Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant states that “at this stage the Panel may have regard to any steps that were taken by the HCPC to bring the notice to the Registrant’s attention, or any steps that could reasonably and proportionately have been taken…”
6. On 05 October 2022, the Registrant responded to the Notice of Hearing saying:

“I will not be attending the hearing, as I have already applied to surrender my registration”.

7. On 19 October 2022, an amended Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant notifying him that his application for Voluntary Removal would be heard at the hearing on 04 November 2022 starting at 10 am. The Registrant responded on the same date acknowledging receipt of the Amended Notice of Hearing, confirming his application for Voluntary Removal from the register, and stating that he would not be attending the hearing.
8. The Panel decided that the Registrant has been given sufficient notice of proceedings and, the Registrant’s response to the two Notices of Hearing that he has been sent, confirms that he is fully aware of the hearing, wishes to proceed with his application for voluntary removal and does not intend to attend the hearing. There has been no application to adjourn and no indication that the Registrant would be willing to attend on an alternative date, therefore re-listing would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Registrant has deliberately waived his right to attend the hearing today.
9. In conclusion, the Panel determined that it would be in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests for the matter to proceed today in his absence.
10. The current hearing is to deal with a Voluntary Removal Arrangement.

Previous Orders

11. Substantive Order made on 05 November 2020
On 05 November 2020 a Substantive Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee imposed a Suspension Order on the Registrant for a period of 12 months.
12. First Substantive Review Hearing - 29 October 2021
On 29 October 2021 a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee reviewed the Suspension Order and extended it for a period of 6 months.
13. Second Substantive Review Hearing - 04 May 2021 - The Current Order
On 04 May 2021, the suspension Order was reviewed and extended for a further period of 6 months
14. This Order is due to expire on 03 December 2022.

Background

15. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist.
16. At the time of the relevant events the Registrant was employed by Kent and Medway Partnership Trust (KMPT) as an Occupational Therapist, between 25 January 2017 and March 2017.
17. As part of his role, the Registrant was required to conduct initial assessments, occupational therapy assessments, and individual and group therapy sessions. As a qualified Band 6 occupational therapist, he was also required to take on the role of practice placement educator, responsible for supervising and coordinating occupational therapy student placements, including setting goals for the students, and providing general assistance and support throughout their placement.
18. Between 23 January 2017 and 10 March 2017, the Registrant supervised a university student, who was on placement at the KMPT, referred to as Colleague 1 throughout these proceedings.
19. At the end of her placement, Colleague 1 raised concerns about the Registrant with her university placement facilitator. The concerns related to the Registrant’s inappropriate behaviour towards her and towards service users, his poor time management and lack of professionalism.
20. In April 2017, during an investigation by the AHP Lead for the Older Adult Care Group at the KMPT into the concerns raised by Colleague 1, further concerns were raised relating to the Registrant’s record keeping.
21. Between 02-05 November 2020, a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee considered a fitness to practise allegation against the registrant at a final hearing. The full allegation can be found on pages 4-6 of the bundle.
22. In short, the Panel found proved that the Registrant had:
• made inappropriate comments to Colleague 1
• inappropriately touched and / or held Colleague 1’s hands
• grabbed Colleague 1 by the hips and / or waist
• asked Colleague 1 to change her personal reflection
• acted inappropriately towards patients
• failed to attend scheduled appointments in a timely manner
• failed to appropriately record appointments.
23. That Panel found that the Registrant’s actions amounted to misconduct and that his fitness to practise was impaired. It imposed a 12-month Suspension Order.
24. On 29 October 2021, the Order was reviewed for the first time. The 29 October 2021 Panel noted that the Registrant had not complied with any of the suggestions made by the substantive panel. Further, whilst there was some evidence of remorse and developing insight there was no evidence of remediation.
25. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. Having seriously considered making a Striking Off Order, the Panel decided that to do so would be disproportionate at that time. Instead, the Panel extended the suspension order for a six-month period, highlighting that a future panel may give serious consideration to a striking off order.
26. On 22 April 2022, prior to the second review, the Registrant emailed the HCPC in response to the Notice of Hearing. In his email, the Registrant stated that he wished to apply for voluntary removal.
27. On 26 April and 28 April 2022, the HCPC responded to the Registrant, acknowledging his request, providing the relevant Practice Note and Guidance and an explanation of the voluntary removal process.
28. On 28 April 2022, the Registrant emailed the HCPC with a completed Consensual Disposal Request Form, Supporting Information, and a testimonial from Swale Community Volunteer Services.
29. On 04 May 2022, the second substantive review hearing took place. The Panel concluded that there had been no material change in the underlying facts of the case since the substantive hearing and that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired. The Panel determined that a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months would be the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Panel concluded that such an order would protect the public and address the public interest and allow the Registrant to explore the possibility of exploring voluntary removal from the Register.

Consensual Disposal

30. On 31 May 2022, following the second substantive review hearing, the HCPC reviewed the Registrant’s case and confirmed that the matter was suitable for voluntary removal.
31. In his voluntary removal application, dated 28 April, the Registrant accepts the allegation that has been made and that his Fitness to Practise is impaired, albeit on “health grounds” when in fact a Conduct and Competence Committee had found the Registrant to be impaired by reason of his misconduct in November 2020. The Registrant’s position in effect appears to be that he is not in a position to undertake the remediation that any reviewing panel would expect to see.
32. In his supportive statement, the Registrant states that he is “deeply saddened” and that “it is with regrets and understanding that I would like to apply for a voluntary removal from the Register on health grounds”. Additionally, that he has, “not returned to practice since the allegations” and does “not wish to return to Occupational Therapy Practice”. The Registrant states that his future plans are, “to restore optimum health and continue with my volunteer driving, providing my health would allow”.
33. On 31 October 2022, the Registrant returned a completed and signed copy of the Voluntary Removal Agreement, which was subsequently signed on behalf of the HCPC.

Submissions on behalf of the HCPC

34. The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving this matter. It is clear from the correspondence received that the Registrant has no desire to practise as an Occupational Therapist in the future. In signing the Voluntary Removal Agreement, the Registrant has accepted and acknowledged that his fitness to practice is impaired by reason of the allegation set out in the Voluntary Removal Agreement. 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.
35. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was assisted by the Skeleton Argument provided by the HCPC and the Practice Note on “Disposal of Cases by Consent”. Specifically, the Practice Note details:
“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.”

Procedure

36. The Voluntary Removal Agreement is an agreement between the HCPC and the Registrant. The principal terms of the agreement are that the HCPC will apply to have the Suspension Order imposed on the Registrant revoked following:
• a signed request by the Registrant to be removed from the Register and,
• a commitment that the Registrant will cease and desist from practising as an Occupational Therapist and will not attempt to re-join the register.
37. Should the Registrant apply to come back on to the Register, his application would be treated in the same way as someone who had been struck off following a Conduct and Competence hearing.
38. The Health Professions Order 2001 does not explicitly provide for consent arrangements. However, the HCPC Practice Note “Disposal of Cases by Consent” reflects that this is a means of allowing matters, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent.
39. The Practice Note states that a Panel should not agree to resolve a case in this way unless it is satisfied of two things:
i. that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured and,
ii. that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.
40. The Panel considered that the Registrant has had a significant amount of time to time to review this information and has consistently maintained his position since he first wrote to the HCPC requesting voluntary removal on 22 April 2022. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s consent to voluntary removal is informed, and that he has had the opportunity to reflect on this course of action, and its implications.

Public Protection

41. The Panel was of the view that public protection would be ensured as the agreement is equivalent, in effect, to a Striking off Order. This is the likely outcome were the Fitness to Practise proceedings to continue, should the Registrant not engage with demonstrating how his misconduct has been remedied. Voluntary removal would mean that the Registrant would no longer be registered as an Occupational Therapist. As he has confirmed that he does not wish to practise in the future, he will not be in a position where his services can be offered under this professional title. Therefore, the public would be adequately protected from any potential risk posed by the Registrant’s practise.

Public Interest

42. With respect to the wider public interest, the Panel considered that confidence in the profession and the regulatory process has been maintained by way of the findings of fact and sanction imposed at the final hearing, and the continuing orders that have subsequently been in place. The wider public interest would not be undermined should this matter be disposed of by way of consent, given that the Registrant has accepted that his fitness to practise is impaired and not able to practise as a Occupation Therapist. Accordingly, the public would not be concerned, nor would public confidence in the profession be put at risk.
43. Having taken into account all the relevant consideration the Panel has come to the conclusion that voluntary removal would be a just and fair way to resolve this case effectively. Accordingly, it is appropriate to dispose of this matter in accordance with the terms of the Voluntary Removal Agreement. Disposal by consent on these terms is a suitable, pragmatic, and expeditious way of dealing with this matter.
44. In conclusion, the Panel consents to the disposal of this matter by voluntary removal by; it does so by approving the proposed agreement.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mr Deepak K Deshmukh from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Deepak K Deshmukh