Natalie Furness

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel began by considering service. It noted that Notice of today’s hearing had been served on the Registrant by letter emailed to her and her representative on 30 June 2023. That letter stated the time and date of this remote hearing, and that the hearing would consider the agreement reached between the HCPC and the Registrant for voluntary removal from the register.
2. The Panel was satisfied that Notice had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, and further, saw that her representative had responded on 3 August. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was aware that in accordance with rule 3 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, all that is required is proof that Notice has been sent to the Registrant’s registered address. In accordance with the Coronavirus Amendment Rules 2021, Notice can be served by email. The Panel was satisfied that good service had been effected.

Proceeding in Absence

3. Mr Schofield on behalf of the HCPC applied for the Panel to hear the matter in the absence of the Registrant. He pointed out that through her representative she had indicated that she would not be attending, and submitted that an agreed position had been reached between the parties, meaning that the matter could be dealt with fairly in the Registrant’s absence.
4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who reminded it of the cases of R v Jones [2003] UKPC 34, which sets out the factors to consider when deciding whether it would be fair to proceed in the absence of a registrant, and General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, which confirmed that if there is not a good reason to adjourn, then the matter should proceed in a registrant’s absence.
5. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to hear the matter in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant had indicated a clear intention not to attend, and there was an agreed position between the parties, which the Panel was being asked to approve. Indeed, the Panel considered that the Registrant would expect the matter to be dealt with today. Accordingly, it was in the interests of the Registrant, the Regulator and in the public interest not to delay resolution of the matter, and hence, the Panel determined that it would proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

6. The Registrant worked at Harnham Physiotherapy, (‘the Practice’), between 26 November and 17 December 2019. On 28 January 2020 the clinical director of the Practice made a referral to the HCPC, raising concerns about the Registrant’s record keeping. It stated that 5 of 24 sets of notes made by the Registrant had major sections missing. Record keeping had been raised in a meeting with the Registrant on 13 December 2019. She was asked to add more detail to her notes. In addition, the Registrant had failed to respond to contact from the clinical director about the treatment she carried out in order to assist the clinical director to respond to complaints which had been made to the practice.
7. The HCPC obtained an opinion from a Registrant Assessor, which was provided on 8 July 2022. The Assessor was asked to comment on the treatment provided to two service users (‘A’ and ‘Q’) who had made complaints to the Practice. The Assessor was highly critical of the standard of clinical notes for service user A. Due to the lack of detail in the notes, it had not been possible to comment on the clinical concern raised. Similarly in relation to service user Q, sections of the notes had not been completed. Again, it had not been possible for the Assessor to form a view in relation to the clinical concern, as no evidence of the bruising allegedly sustained by the service user had been provided.
8. On 20 September 2022 an Investigating Committee reviewed the evidence and considered that there was a case to answer in respect of the Registrant’s record keeping and her failure to engage with the Practice to enable complaints to be responded to. The matter was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee.
9. In subsequent correspondence between the Registrant’s representative and the HCPC, a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) was discussed. The Registrant requested voluntary removal on the basis that she no longer wished to practise as a Physiotherapist. She admitted the allegations and that her fitness to practise is impaired.

Submissions

10. Mr Schofield submitted that the question for the Panel is whether the agreement reached between the HCPC and the Registrant offers both an appropriate level of public protection and whether it adequately protects the public interest.
11. With regard to the first element, public protection, Mr Schofield submitted that the effect of the VRA is equivalent to the Registrant being struck off. She will no longer be able to practise. As such, there can be no higher level of public protection. If she were to make an application for restoration to the Register in due course, she would be treated as if she had been struck off.
12. In respect of the wider public interest, which includes protecting service users, declaring proper standards and upholding confidence in the profession, Mr Schofield submitted that the VRA would not be detrimental. The factors to consider included that the allegations were at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of misconduct and lack of competence; there was no evidence of patient harm, and the risk to patients was low; the allegations were confined to a very short period of time and related to the Registrant’s work at one practice, where she worked part time; and the Registrant has no adverse fitness to practise history. The Registrant had accepted that her fitness to practise is impaired and has confirmed that she no longer wishes to continue in the profession.
13. Mr Schofield submitted that this is not the type of case where the public interest calls for a final hearing. Indeed, he submitted that the VRA provides an effective and expediated resolution to the matter.
14. Mr Schofield asked the Panel to approve the VRA and withdraw the allegations against the Registrant so that the Registrar can remove her name from the Register.

Decision on Application

15. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. It was aware that in view of the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public, it should not approve the proposed VRA unless it was satisfied that it offered:

• the appropriate level of public protection; and
• doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

16. The Panel began by assessing the seriousness of the allegations. It noted that the allegations related to record keeping and not the Registrants competence to perform assessment and treatment. It considered that this was something that could easily have been addressed by training. There was no direct risk of patient harm. There was also an allegation in relation to the Registrant’s failure to make contact with the Practice to discuss complaints that had been made. The Panel agreed with the HCPC’s submission that these allegations were at the low end on the spectrum of seriousness.
17. The Panel determined that removal from the register, meaning that the Registrant can no longer practise as a Physiotherapist provided the maximum level of public protection. As such it had no concerns in that respect.
18. The Panel went on to consider whether public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the allegations were not fully investigated and aired at a public hearing. It determined that there was not a public interest in holding a full hearing to deal with allegations which, in the view of both the Regulator and the Panel, were at the bottom end of the spectrum of seriousness. In reaching this decision, the Panel took into account the likely views of the patients who made complaints, the clinical director who made the HCPC referral and the public more broadly. It concluded that they would not expect a full hearing to be held in circumstances where the Registrant had requested removal from the Register in the face of these allegations. Indeed, there was a public interest in the efficient use of resources and dealing with the matter in the most expeditious manner available.

The Panel approved the VRA dated 10 August 2023 and determined that it would withdraw the allegations, as set out in the Notice of Withdrawal of today’s date.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Natalie Furness