Victoria Lynde

Background
1. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist (“OT”) who was employed by Livewell Southwest in Plymouth from 1 March 2021. Her initial rotation was on the stroke rehabilitation ward. She was then moved to the community therapy team, in which she remained until her dismissal following a final probationary meeting on 20 September 2021.

2. Following the referral that was made to the HCPC by the Registrant’s manager within the community therapy team, JA, on 22 September 2021, the Registrant made a self-referral on 30 September 2021.

3. The referral from Livewell Southwest was comprised, in summary, of (i) witness statements from those responsible for the supervision and training of the Registrant during her probation period; (ii) Service User assessments prepared by the Registrant and (iii) Practice supervision records.

4. Both referrals confirmed that the Registrant was dismissed from her role after she had failed to demonstrate the necessary consistent improvements required in the areas of her practice that had been identified by her employers. The concerns covered a number of domains relating to her practice as an OT.

5. The matter was subsequently considered by a Panel of the Investigating Committee (ICP) on 22 September 2022 which referred the following allegation against the Registrant to the Conduct and Competence Committee for a substantive hearing.

As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT70912) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your lack of competence. In that:

1. Between March and September 2021, you were unsuccessful in demonstrating the skills and knowledge expected of an Occupational Therapist. In that:
a. You were unable to carry out initial assessments and understand relevant information to an appropriate standard.
b. You were unable to understand functional impairments and identify potential risks to service users.
c. You were unable to identify service user needs and appropriate safe solutions for service users.
d. You were unable to draw on appropriate knowledge and skills to inform practice.
e. You were unable to complete full and accurate records.

2. The matters set out in Particular 1 above constitute lack of competence.

3. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practice is impaired.

6. In advance of the matter being considered by the ICP, the Registrant provided a reflective statement, her CV and a reference from her current line manager at the Derriford Hospital, where she is now working as a Support Secretary, a role that does not require her registration with the HCPC.

7. The Registrant wishes to enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) with the HCPC to remove herself from the HCPC’s Register. The Registrant has completed the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma and has signed a Voluntary Removal Agreement. The HCPC have also signed the VRA.

Submissions
8. Ms. Angliss submitted, on behalf of the HCPC, that this matter is suitable for disposal by consent in the terms set out in the VRA.

9. Ms. Angliss primarily relied on the signed admissions made by the Registrant in the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma in which she submitted the Registrant has demonstrated insight by admitting the substance of the allegation against her and that her fitness to practice remains impaired by reason of her lack of competence. The Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma requests Voluntary Removal.

10. Ms. Angliss stated that the Registrant’s insight has also been referred to and recognised in the comments made by her previous employer on 25 April 2022 and in the material that was provided on her behalf for consideration by the ICP. The previous employer confirms that the Registrant has shown great insight and remorse and she had been accepting of her shortcomings in her professional role. Ms. Angliss reminded the Panel that the Registrant is no longer practicing in a role that requires her registration and she has confirmed that she does not intend to practice in the profession in the future. Ms. Angliss pointed out that the Registrant is aware that she will be treated for the purposes of any re-admission to the Register as if she had been struck off.

11. Ms. Angliss submitted that resolving this matter by consent, through the removal of the Registrant’s name from the register, is the most effective way of ensuring that the appropriate level of public protection is secured going forward and would not be detrimental to the wider public interest in circumstances where full admissions have been made.
12. Mr. Short on behalf of the Registrant submitted that he agreed with the HCPC application. He submitted the Registrant had demonstrated full insight into the matters. He submitted she had no intention to work again as an OT.

Decision
13. The Panel notes that the Article 11(3) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Registration and Fees) Rules 2003, prevents a Registrant from resigning from the HCPC Register whilst the subject of an allegation.

14. The Panel had regard to the guidance contained within the HCPTS Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. This notes that 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 VRA allowing the Registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the registrant had been struck off the Register.

15. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The Panel noted that before disposing of a case by consent, the Panel must be satisfied, as the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public, that by doing so:
• the appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and
• doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

17. The Panel had regard to the terms of the Consent Order and is satisfied that by agreeing to it, the Registrant will no longer be able to practice in a role that requires her registration, thereby eliminating any outstanding risk posed by the Registrant to service users or the wider public as a result of her current and admitted impairment.

18. The Panel also notes that the public interest is satisfied by the fact that the Registrant’s name will be removed from the HCPC’s Register, which is the effective equivalent of the Registrant receiving the highest form of sanction (strike off) had the matter been concluded at a substantive hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee. As a result, the Panel is satisfied that the public will be adequately protected by the VRA and that resolving the case through a VRA would be both proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Panel noted the Registrant has engaged with the HCPC throughout and has demonstrated good insight.

19. The Panel therefore approves the Voluntary Removal Agreement and the Notice of Withdrawal.

The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Miss Victoria Lynde from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Victoria Lynde