Valerie A Winchester

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. Having received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents contained in the service bundle that the Registrant was properly served with notice of the hearing in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. Ms Khorassani made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She referred the Panel to correspondence in the form of multiple emails between the Registrant and the HCPC, in which the Registrant was clear that she wanted to voluntarily agree to removal from the Register. It was submitted that the Registrant had waived her right to attend the hearing and that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests that the hearing should proceed in her absence.

3. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Having found that good service had been effected, the Panel considered that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance in the future and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. The Registrant had provided a reflection that she wished the Panel to take into account in making its decisions. Further, it was also clear from her communications with the HCPC that she wished these proceedings to conclude without further delay, having signed a Voluntary Removal Agreement. Specifically, the Registrant’s email of 4 December makes clear that she has decided not to attend.

4. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interests for the hearing to proceed in her absence. No useful purpose would be served by adjourning.

Background:

5. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer and was employed in that capacity by The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust (“the Trust”) until her retirement in 2020. Prior to her retirement, the Registrant was employed as manager of the X-Ray Department at the hospital.

6. On 23 September 2020, following her retirement from the Trust, the Registrant visited the Computer Tomography (“CT”) Department, where she was seen by a former work colleague, Person E, in the CT control room, accessing patient records on a computer. This was reported by Person E to the Superintendent Radiographer, CB.

7. On 12 November 2020 CB telephoned the Registrant about the incident on 23 September 2020. The Registrant admitted having accessed the medical records of a member of her family, Person C, because she was concerned about Person C’s health. She also admitted having used the login details of Person A (a former colleague) to gain access to Person C’s records, knowing that it was wrong to do so.

8. There followed an internal audit by the Trust, in which JN and BJ were involved in providing and verifying information as to occasions on which the medical records of the Registrant and Persons B and C had been accessed. It was ascertained that the Registrant appeared to have accessed her own and the medical records of Persons B and C on three dates in 2016 and on other four dates between November 2019 and September 2020.

9. A fitness to practise hearing was held on the 7-8 December 2022. All factual particulars alleged were found proved. That Panel found that misconduct and impairment were made out and suspended the Registrant from the Register for a period of 12 months.

10. Since her suspension, the Registrant has been in contact with the HCPC to indicate that she has retired and wished to enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement.

Decision on Application:

11. The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving the current matter, in lieu of reviewing the current order, and that this matter should be disposed of by consent.

12. Given voluntary removal is equivalent in effect to a strike-off, the HCPC submits that the necessary public protection would be ensured by this course of action, given that the Registrant was made subject to a 12 month suspension order in December 2022.

13. 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. The HCPC reiterates that the matters have been found proved and that the Registrant has admitted the substance of the allegations and that voluntary removal from the register will have the same effect as a strike-off. It is submitted that these factors are sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour.

14. The HCPC had invited the Registrant to reflect on her past misconduct and this has been complied with. The Registrant has submitted a document that sets out insights that have not been placed before a Panel at earlier hearings.

15. The Panel considered all of the material before it including the main evidence bundle, the HCPC Skeleton Argument in support of the Voluntary Removal Agreement (“the VRA”), the email exchanges between the Registrant and the HCPC and the signed copy of the VRA.

16. The Panel also had regard to oral submission to the Panel today in which the skeleton argument of the HCPC was adopted. There was confirmation that the HCPC was satisfied that the Registrant fully understood the effect of the Voluntary Removal Agreement and that granting the application would not compromise the protection of the public or have any detrimental effect on the wider public interest.

17. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had careful regard to the content of the HCPTS Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent. The Panel had particular regard to the following part of the Practice Note:

“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.”

18. The Panel considered the reasons provided by both the HCPC and the Registrant to be sound. The Registrant has fully engaged with the HCPC, and recognised that she has reached a time in her life when she wishes to retire rather than work as a registered healthcare professional. The Registrant retired three years ago and has signed a VRA to confirm her comprehension that, were she to apply for readmission to the HCPC Register in the future, the VRA would operate as if she had been stuck off of the Register as a result of the Allegation being found proved. The Registrant has been provided with comprehensive advice about VRA and its impact.

19. The Panel noted the content of the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC in which she repeatedly stated that she no longer wanted to practise as a Radiographer and wanted to be removed from the Register. The Panel was therefore satisfied that this was a considered and informed decision on the part of the Registrant.

20. The Panel noted from the documents that the Registrant has also signed a Declaration that there was no other matter of which the Registrant was aware which might give rise to any other allegation.

21. The Panel was mindful of its overarching objective of protection of the public and the public interest.

22. The Panel therefore considered whether there were any factors that would make it undesirable to allow the allegation to be concluded on the consensual basis set out in the VRA. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be adequately protected if the Registrant permitted to have her name removed from the Register and leave the profession in accordance with the terms of the VRA. She would no longer be able to practise as a Radiographer.

23. The Panel was also satisfied that there are no overriding public interest factors that would require this matter to proceed to a review of the existing suspension order which was imposed in December 2022 instead. The sanction of suspension is a serious one but the VRA and the withdrawal of the fitness to practise proceedings have the same effect as the Registrant being struck off. Therefore, the Panel considered that the public interest factors, which include maintaining confidence in the profession and its regulation, will be met by proceeding with an VRA and withdrawal of the fitness to practise matter.

24. The Panel is aware that if the Registrant seeks to return to the HCPC Register at any time in the future, her application would be treated as if she had been struck off as a result of the Allegation.

25. The Panel is satisfied that this means of disposal of this case is appropriate and proportionate, and is jointly in the interests of the public, the HCPC and the Registrant.

26. Accordingly, the Panel approves the Voluntary Removal Agreement and the withdrawal of the suspension order and withdrawal of those proceedings.

The Panel approves the Voluntary Removal Agreement signed by the HCPC and by the Registrant, Ms Valerie A Winchester, and agrees to her removal from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Valerie A Winchester