Mrs Jacqueline A Webb

Profession: Radiographer
Registration Number: RA24644
Hearing Type: Voluntary Removal Agreement
Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 31/01/2023 End: 17:00 31/01/2023
Location: Virtual via videoconference
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Voluntary Removal agreed

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation Finding Order Notes Hearing History

Allegation

Whilst registered with the  Health & Care Professions Council as  a Radiographer and employed by NHS Forth Valley, you:
 
1. In or around June 2017, undertook an anomaly scan on Baby A, and you:
 
a) Did not detect Baby A's fetal cardiac anomaly;
 
b) Did not follow your employer's protocol;
 
c) Performed a substandard anomaly scan.
 
2. Between 22 February 2017 and 15 June 2017, you failed to conduct properly 10 Early Pregnancy Scans (EPAS) in that:
 
a) In the case of Service User 1:
 
i. you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
ii. you inappropriately reported “a non-continuing IU pregnancy”;
 
iii. recorded the presence of a yolk sac which was not reflected in the images;
 
iv. you did not assess ovaries and adnexal regions.
 
b) In the case of Service User 2:
 
i. you did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
ii. you did not assess ovaries; and
 
iii. you did not conduct a transvaginal adnexa assessment.
 
c) In the case of Service User 3, you obtained suboptimal images of the uterus;
 
d) In the case of Service User 4:
 
i. you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
ii. you did not conduct a transvaginal assessment
 
iii. you did not image and/or comment on the right ovary;
 
iv. the image quality was poor;
 
v. you incorrectly reported a cyst on the left ovary
 
e) In the case of Service User 5, you:
 
i. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
ii. Did not record an image from TVS;
 
iii. Did not record an image of the endometrium;
 
iv. Did not record clear image of the ovaries;
 
v. Did not document that an ectopic pregnancy could not be excluded;
 
vi. Archived 4 suboptimal images on PACS;
 
vii. Incorrectly measured and recorded uterine length
 
f) In the case of Service User 6, you recorded suboptimal images of the uterus.
 
g) In the case of Service User 7, you:
 
i. Calculated gestation from SAC diameter when it should have been from CRL length;
 
ii. Produced suboptimal images of adnexae and uterus with IU sac;
 
iii. Did not conduct a transvaginal assessment; and
 
iv. Did not adequately assess ovaries and adnexal regions.
 
h) In the case of Service User 8, you:
 
i. Did undertake an SAC measurement;
 
ii. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
iii. Produced a suboptimal image of the left ovary;
 
iv. Incorrectly recorded CRL as 10.1mm.
 
i) In the case of Service User 9, you:
 
i. Produced sub optimal images;
 
ii. Did not measure CRL;
 
iii. Provided limited annotation on archived images;
 
j) In the case of Service User 10:
 
i. You recorded suboptimal images;
 
ii. You incorrectly reported a cyst on the right ovary
 
3. In respect of 11 Dating/Viability ultrasound examinations undertaken by you:
 
a) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Crown Rump Length (CRL) was suboptimal due to either the fetal position or calliper placement;
 
b) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Nuchal Translucency (NT) image had not been archived on PACS;
 
c) In 6 out of 11 cases, an average of only 2 CRL's had been used to calculate the risk factor;
 
d) In 2 out of 11 cases, a Head Circumference (HC) measurement had been taken when it was not required as gestation was less than 14+1;
 
e) In the case of a twin pregnancy, Patient 1 had not been offered counselling prior to the offer of NT screening.
 
4. Between 22 March 2017 and 14 June 2017, you failed to conduct properly 10 Anomaly ultrasound examinations in that:
 
a) In respect of Scan 1 [Service User 21]:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
ii. Suboptimal quality was noted in 4 images of the fetal heart;
 
iii. The head circumference measurement was poor;
 
iv. The three images you stored of the fetal brain were suboptimal;
 
v. The measurement of the trans cerebellar diameter was suboptimal
 
b) In respect of Scan 2 [Service User 22]:
 
i. You used incorrect settings such that contrast and resolution were insufficient to confirm cardiac normality;
 
ii. You did not store any images of the fetal spine;
 
c) In respect of Scan 3 [Service User 23]:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
ii. The images of the fetal heart were suboptimal.
 
iii. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
iv. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was taken at an incorrect level of the abdomen;
 
v. The Femur Length measurement was suboptimal;
 
d) In respect of Scan 4 [Service User 24]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. You did not obtain an adequate image of the sagittal spine;
 
iii. An inadequate  calliper placement was used  when  measuring  the posterior lateral ventricles.
 
e) In respect of Scan 5 [Service User 25]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles.
 
iii. The fetal spine examination and images were suboptimal.
 
iv. The sagittal spine views were suboptimal.
 
f) In respect of Scan 6 [Service User 26]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
iii. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was suboptimal;
 
iv. The fetal spine examination was suboptimal. g ) In respect of Scan 7 [Service User 27]:
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. No image was stored of the cerebellum and posterior fossa;
 
iii. An image was saved and annotated as ventricle but did not demonstrate the correct view required;
 
iv. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was suboptimal;
 
v. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was taken at an incorrect level;
 
h) In respect of Scan 8 [Service User 18]:
 
i. You did not adequately measure the posterior lateral ventricle;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the anterior ventricles;
 
i) In respect of scan 9 [Service User 28]:
 
i. The cerebellar view was suboptimal;
 
ii. The 4 chamber view was suboptimal;
 
iii. You stored suboptimal brain and head images; and
 
iv. You stored suboptimal cardiac images
 
v. The cerebellum diameter has been incorrectly measured.
 
j) In respect of Scan 10 [Service User 29]:
 
i. The measurement of the posterior lateral ventricles was suboptimal;
 
ii. The placental image was suboptimal.
 
iii. You stored suboptimal cardiac images
 
5. The matters described at particulars 1 to 4 above amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
 
6. By reason of your misconduct and / or lack of competence, your fitness to practice is impaired.

Finding

The Skeleton Argument and the Appendices.
 
1. For the purposes of this hearing, the HCPC has submitted and the Panel has read a Skeleton Argument, signed by Kingsley Napley LLP and dated 04 January 2023 [the Skeleton Argument]. Annexed to the Skeleton Argument as Appendix A, is the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent” dated March 2018. The Panel has also read the other appendices annexed to the Skeleton Argument and referred to below.
Service and Proceeding in Absence.
 
2. The Panel has seen the Notice of today’s hearing dated 23 November 2022 which the HCPC sent by email to the Registrant at a registered email address. The Notice of Hearing made clear that this hearing would take place today as a virtual hearing. The Notice informed the Registrant of the time and date of this hearing. The Panel has seen an electronic communication dated 23 November 2022 which confirms delivery of the notice.
 
3. Having heard Ms Sheridan on behalf of the HCPC and having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that good service of the Notice of Hearing has taken place.
 
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant.
 
4. The Panel has seen an email from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 12 October 2022 in which she said “I do not envision (sic) attending a hearing, I am afraid to say. I do not have any representation or support so there is no need to contact anyone else.”
 
5. Ms Sheridan on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Panel should consider the case in the absence of the Registrant.
 
6. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
 
7. The Panel was aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was one to be taken with great care and caution. However the Panel has decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The reasons are as follows:
 
⦁ Service of the appropriate notice of this hearing has been properly effected.
 
⦁ The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment.
 
⦁ The Registrant has informed the HCPC by her email dated 12 October 2022 that she does not envisage attending a hearing.
 
⦁ The Panel has kept in mind the guidance contained in the Practice Note issued by the HCPTS.
 
⦁ There is no reason to suppose that an adjournment would result in the future attendance of the Registrant.
 
⦁ There is a public interest in proceeding in order to bring these proceedings to a conclusion, which is the wish of both the Registrant and the HCPC.
 
⦁ In these circumstances it is right to conclude that the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself.
 
Proceeding in private
 
8. Ms Sheridan submitted that any reference to the health of the Registrant should be received in private. She said that this accorded with the wishes of the Registrant. Having heard and received the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that any reference to the health of the Registrant should be received in private but that otherwise this is a public hearing. The Panel directed that the determination of the Panel will reflect this ruling.
Background as described in the Skeleton Argument
 
9. On 16 December 2016, the Registrant commenced employment within the Maternity Ultrasound Team at Forth Valley Royal Hospital (‘the Trust’) as a Radiographer Sonographer. On 16 June 2017, it was identified that a baby had been born with a cardiac abnormality, which had not previously been detected by a scan which had been carried out by the Registrant.
 
10. Following the incident report, the scan image was reviewed by the Clinical Lead for Obstetric Ultrasound, Dr NM, to ensure that the reported findings were the same as those seen on the image and to share any learning points within the wider team. The report raised concerns about the Registrant’s practice and a retrospective audit of a small number of different types of ultrasounds performed by her was carried out. The initial results raised further concern and, as a result, a full investigation and review of all scans performed by the Registrant was carried out.
 
11. On 3 August 2017, the Trust made a fitness to practice referral to the HCPC.
 
12. At its meeting on 11 October 2019, a Panel of the HCPC’s Investigating Committee (‘IC’) determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the following allegation, to be considered by the Conduct and Competence Committee:
 
Whilst registered with the Health & Care Professions Council as a Radiographer and employed by NHS Forth Valley, you:
 
1. In or around June 2017, undertook an anomaly scan on Baby A, and you:
 
a) Did not detect Baby A's fetal cardiac anomaly;
 
b) Did not follow your employer's protocol;
 
c) Performed a substandard anomaly scan.
 
2. Following an audit of 10 Early Pregnancy Scans (EPAS) undertaken by you:
 
a) In the case of Scan 1, you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
b) In the case of Scan 2, you did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
c) In the case of Scan 3, you obtained a suboptimal image of the uterus;
 
d) In the case of Scan 4, you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
e) In the case of Scan 5, you:
 
i. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
ii. Did not record an image from TVS;
 
iii. Did not record an image of the endometrium;
 
iv. Did not record an image of the ovaries;
 
v. Did not document that an ectopic pregnancy could not be excluded;
 
vi. Archived 4 suboptimal images on PACS.
 
f) In the case of Scan 6, you did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus.
 
g) In the case of Scan 7, you:
 
i. Calculated gestation from SAC diameter when it should have been from CRL length;
 
ii. Produced suboptimal images of adnexae and uterus with IU sac.
 
h) In the case of Scan 8, you:
 
i. Did undertake an SAC measurement;
 
ii. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
iii. Produced a suboptimal image of the left ovary.
 
I) In the case of Scan 9, you:
 
i. Did not measure CRL;
 
ii. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
iii. Provided limited annotation on archived images.
 
J) In the case of Scan 10:
 
i. When the SAC was measured the IUGS was not seen;
 
ii. When the CRL was measured the FP was not seen.
 
3. Following an audit of 10 Dating/ Viability ultrasound examinations undertaken by you it was established that:
 
a) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Crown Rump Length (CRL) was suboptimal due to either the fetal position or calliper placement;
 
b) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Nuchal Translucency (NT) image had not been archived on PACS;
 
c) In 6 out of 11 cases, an average of only 2 CRL's had been used to calculate the risk factor;
 
d) In 2 out of 11 cases, a Head Circumference (HC) measurement had been taken when it was not required as gestation was less than 14+1;
 
e) In the case of a twin pregnancy, Patient 1 had not been offered counselling prior to the offer of NT screening.
 
4. Following an audit of 10 Anomaly ultrasound examinations undertaken by you it was established that:
 
a) In Scan 1:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles;
 
ii. Suboptimal quality was noted in 4 chamber and/or 3 vessel;
 
iii. Images of the face and lips were suboptimal.
 
b) In Scan 2:
 
i. Images of the face and lips and in the 4 chamber view were suboptimal;
 
ii. The image of the abdominal circumference was suboptimal;
 
iii. No comment was made on placental placement in relation to the bladder.
 
c) In Scan 3:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles;
 
ii. The image of the 4 chamber view was suboptimal.
 
d) In Scan 4:
 
i. The image of the face and lips were suboptimal;
 
ii. Did not obtain a sagittal view of the sacrum;
 
iii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles.
 
e) In Scan 5, the sagittal spine views were suboptimal.
 
f) In Scan 6:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles;
 
ii. The placental image was suboptimal.
 
g) In Scan 7:
 
i. An image was saved and annotated as ventricle but did not demonstrate the correct view required;
 
ii. The placental image was suboptimal.
 
h) In Scan 8:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles;
 
ii. The sagittal spine view was suboptimal;
 
iii. The image of the stomach was suboptimal.
 
I) In scan 9:
 
i. The cerebellar view was suboptimal;
 
ii. The 4 chamber view was suboptimal;
 
iii. The image of the diaphragm was suboptimal.
 
J) In Scan 10:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the ventricles;
 
ii. The 4 chamber view was suboptimal;
 
iii. The placental image was suboptimal.
 
5. The matters described at particulars 1 to 4 above amount to misconduct and /or lack of competence.
 
6. By reason of your misconduct and / or lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired
 
13. Following the referral, Kingsley Napley LLP was instructed by the HCPC to undertake an investigation into the allegation detailed above. As part of this investigation, the following has been obtained:
 
a. Witness Statement of RD (Appendix B to the Skeleton Argument);
 
b. Witness Statement of LH (Appendix C to the Skeleton Argument);
 
c. Witness Statement of JR (Appendix D to the Skeleton Argument); and
 
d. Exhibit Bundle (Appendix E to the Skeleton Argument)
 
14. On 17 March 2020, Tracy Butcher was formally instructed to prepare a report on behalf of the HCPC in relation to the allegation that was referred by the Investigating Committee. Tracy Butcher was instructed to review the scans taken by the Registrant, and her findings, and provide an opinion as to whether the Registrant’s performance fell below the standards expected of a Registered Radiographer.
 
15. On 30 May 2020, Tracy Butcher provided Kingsley Napley LLP with her signed expert report. A copy of this report is produced at Appendix F to the Skeleton Argument.
 
16. In the course of the HCPC’s investigation, it was identified that some of the factual particulars could not be proved or required amendment.
 
17. At a Preliminary Hearing on 5 May 2022, a Panel of the HCPC’s Conduct and Competence Committee permitted the applications to adduce expert evidence of Tracy Butcher, discontinue in part the allegation and to make amendments to the remaining allegation. The allegation against the Registrant now reads:
 
Whilst  registered with the  Health & Care Professions Council as  a Radiographer and employed by NHS Forth Valley, you:
 
1. In or around June 2017, undertook an anomaly scan on Baby A, and you:
 
a) Did not detect Baby A's fetal cardiac anomaly;
 
b) Did not follow your employer's protocol;
 
c) Performed a substandard anomaly scan.
 
2. Between 22 February 2017 and 15 June 2017, you failed to conduct properly 10 Early Pregnancy Scans (EPAS) in that:
 
a) In the case of Service User 1:
 
i. you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
ii. you inappropriately reported “a non-continuing IU pregnancy”;
 
iii. recorded the presence of a yolk sac which was not reflected in the images;
 
iv. you did not assess ovaries and adnexal regions.
 
b) In the case of Service User 2:
 
i. you did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
ii. you did not assess ovaries; and
 
iii. you did not conduct a transvaginal adnexa assessment.
 
c) In the case of Service User 3, you obtained suboptimal images of the uterus;
 
d) In the case of Service User 4:
 
i. you did not arrange a repeat scan despite the CRL measurements being insufficient to confirm viability;
 
ii. you did not conduct a transvaginal assessment
 
iii. you did not image and/or comment on the right ovary;
 
iv. the image quality was poor;
 
v. you incorrectly reported a cyst on the left ovary
 
e) In the case of Service User 5, you:
 
i. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
ii. Did not record an image from TVS;
 
iii. Did not record an image of the endometrium;
 
iv. Did not record clear image of the ovaries;
 
v. Did not document that an ectopic pregnancy could not be excluded;
 
vi. Archived 4 suboptimal images on PACS;
 
vii. Incorrectly measured and recorded uterine length
 
f) In the case of Service User 6, you recorded suboptimal images of the uterus.
 
g) In the case of Service User 7, you:
 
i. Calculated gestation from SAC diameter when it should have been from CRL length;
 
ii. Produced suboptimal images of adnexae and uterus with IU sac;
 
iii. Did not conduct a transvaginal assessment; and
 
iv. Did not adequately assess ovaries and adnexal regions.
 
h) In the case of Service User 8, you:
 
i. Did undertake an SAC measurement;
 
ii. Did not obtain a sagittal image of the uterus;
 
iii. Produced a suboptimal image of the left ovary;
 
iv. Incorrectly recorded CRL as 10.1mm.
 
i) In the case of Service User 9, you:
 
i. Produced sub optimal images;
 
ii. Did not measure CRL;
 
iii. Provided limited annotation on archived images;
 
j) In the case of Service User 10:
 
i. You recorded suboptimal images;
 
ii. You incorrectly reported a cyst on the right ovary
 
3. In respect of 11 Dating/Viability ultrasound examinations undertaken by you:
 
a) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Crown Rump Length (CRL) was suboptimal due to either the fetal position or calliper placement;
 
b) In 5 out of 11 cases, the Nuchal Translucency (NT) image had not been archived on PACS;
 
c) In 6 out of 11 cases, an average of only 2 CRL's had been used to calculate the risk factor;
 
d) In 2 out of 11 cases, a Head Circumference (HC) measurement had been taken when it was not required as gestation was less than 14+1;
 
e) In the case of a twin pregnancy, Patient 1 had not been offered counselling prior to the offer of NT screening.
 
4. Between 22 March 2017 and 14 June 2017, you failed to conduct properly 10 Anomaly ultrasound examinations in that:
 
a) In respect of Scan 1 [Service User 21]:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
ii. Suboptimal quality was noted in 4 images of the fetal heart;
 
iii. The head circumference measurement was poor;
 
iv. The three images you stored of the fetal brain were suboptimal;
 
v. The measurement of the trans cerebellar diameter was suboptimal
 
b) In respect of Scan 2 [Service User 22]:
 
i. You used incorrect settings such that contrast and resolution were insufficient to confirm cardiac normality;
 
ii. You did not store any images of the fetal spine;
 
c) In respect of Scan 3 [Service User 23]:
 
i. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
ii. The images of the fetal heart were suboptimal.
 
iii. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
iv. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was taken at an incorrect level of the abdomen;
 
v. The Femur Length measurement was suboptimal;
 
d) In respect of Scan 4 [Service User 24]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. You did not obtain an adequate image of the sagittal spine;
 
iii. An inadequate  calliper placement was used  when  measuring  the posterior lateral ventricles.
 
e) In respect of Scan 5 [Service User 25]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles.
 
iii. The fetal spine examination and images were suboptimal.
 
iv. The sagittal spine views were suboptimal.
 
f) In respect of Scan 6 [Service User 26]:
 
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the posterior lateral ventricles;
 
iii. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was suboptimal;
 
iv. The fetal spine examination was suboptimal. g ) In respect of Scan 7 [Service User 27]:
i. The images of the fetal head and brain were suboptimal;
 
ii. No image was stored of the cerebellum and posterior fossa;
 
iii. An image was saved and annotated as ventricle but did not demonstrate the correct view required;
 
iv. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was suboptimal;
 
v. The Abdominal Circumference measurement was taken at an incorrect level;
 
h) In respect of Scan 8 [Service User 18]:
 
i. You did not adequately measure the posterior lateral ventricle;
 
ii. An inadequate calliper placement was used when measuring the anterior ventricles;
 
i) In respect of scan 9 [Service User 28]:
 
i. The cerebellar view was suboptimal;
 
ii. The 4 chamber view was suboptimal;
 
iii. You stored suboptimal brain and head images; and
 
iv. You stored suboptimal cardiac images
 
v. The cerebellum diameter has been incorrectly measured.
 
j) In respect of Scan 10 [Service User 29]:
 
i. The measurement of the posterior lateral ventricles was suboptimal;
 
ii. The placental image was suboptimal.
 
iii. You stored suboptimal cardiac images
 
5. The matters described at particulars 1 to 4 above amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
 
6. By reason of your misconduct and / or lack of competence, your fitness to practice is impaired.
 
Application to Apply for a Voluntary Removal Agreement
 
18. On 1 September 2022, the Registrant returned a completed Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma (Appendix G to the Skeleton Argument) and sought clarification that her medical history would not be shared within the public domain. The HCPC confirmed that at the hearing they would make an application for any reference to the Registrant’s health to be held in private and it would therefore not be disclosed to the public. The HCPC also confirmed that if the Registrant wished to proceed with voluntary removal, she would need to admit current impairment on the basis of the allegation in its entirety.
 
19. On 5 September 2022, the Registrant admitted impairment as per the allegations in full. The HCPC subsequently confirmed that they are willing to consider a voluntary removal agreement as a way of disposing of the matter.
 
20. A copy of the HCPC’s correspondence with the Registrant can be found at Appendix H to the Skeleton Argument.
 
21. On 4 January 2023, Kingsley Napley LLP received the signed Voluntary Removal Agreement from the Registrant, a copy of which is produced at Appendix I to the Skeleton Argument . The draft Notice of Withdrawal can also be found at Appendix J to the Skeleton Argument.
 
The HCPC’s application for approval of the VRA
 
22. The HCPC’s submissions in support of the application for the approval of the VRA are set out in the Skeleton Argument and are in the terms below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Skeleton Argument have been retained and are shown in brackets.
 
Guidance on Disposal of Cases by way of Voluntary Removal Agreement
 
(16) The Voluntary Removal Agreement is an agreement to the effect that the HCPC will not take any further action against the Registrant in relation to this matter on the understanding that she will be removed from the Register, cease from practising as a Radiographer and not attempt to re-join the Register for at least a period of 5 years.
 
(17) The relevant Practice Note at Appendix A to the Skeleton Argument in relation to Disposal of Cases by Consent notes that the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public and that a Panel should not agree to resolve a case by consent unless they are satisfied that:
 
a. The appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and
 
b. Doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.
 
(18) Similarly, in Cohen v GMC1 the High Court stated that there are “critically important public policy issues” which must be taken into account by Panels in fitness to practise proceedings, including the ‘public ’component of impairment. This ‘public ’component requires consideration of the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.
 
(19) The Panel can conclude the case on an expedited basis upon the terms of the draft Notice of Withdrawal put before it, or reject that proposal and set the case down for a full, contested hearing.
 
Submissions
 
(20) The HCPC asks the Panel to exercise its discretion to dispose of the matter by way of Voluntary Removal Agreement for the reasons outlined below.
 
(21) The HCPC submits that, in all the circumstances, voluntary removal from the Register would be an appropriate means of resolving the current matter.
 
(22) The HCPC submits that disposing of the matter by way of voluntary removal from the Register would be a fairer [redacted] method of concluding the matter, as the Registrant has admitted the substance of the allegation and that her fitness to practise is currently impaired.
 
(23) 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.
 
(24) 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. It is submitted that this case does not raise concerns in regards to the wider public interest to such an extent that the matter must be disposed of at a Final Hearing.
 
(25) The Registrant has not worked in a registered role since June 2017 and is now retired with no intention to return to practice as a Radiographer. The Registrant has expressed remorse at her actions in her supporting information. Disposal by way of voluntary removal would be an appropriate way of disposing of the matter in these circumstances, as it is in both the Registrant’s and the public’s interests for the matter to be concluded on an expedited basis.
 
(26) It is therefore submitted that permitting the Registrant to be removed from the Register under the terms of the Voluntary Removal Agreement is an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with this matter and the HCPC respectfully invites the Panel to approve the proposed agreement.
 
Conclusion
 
(27) The HCPC argues that the appropriate level of public protection is secured by means of a Voluntary Removal Agreement and that in proceeding to have this matter disposed of by way of consent would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.
 
(28) The Panel is respectfully invited to grant this application to dispose of this matter by way of voluntary removal from the Register.
 
Oral submissions to the Panel on 31 January 2023.
 
23. Ms Sheridan adopted the submissions as set out in the Skeleton Argument. She emphasised that all the statutory criteria had been met and that there were no public interest reasons to require a full hearing. In addition, Ms Sheridan emphasised that the Registrant was deeply remorseful and apologetic for the fact that she had not performed in accordance with the professional and clinical standards that were properly to be expected. The Registrant had now retired from the profession. She has not undertaken clinical work since April 2017. Prior to the matters that had led to the referral, the Registrant’s clinical work was of a high standard and she had come to the Trust with good references.
 
24. The Panel has not received any substantive submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant
The decision of the Panel made on 31 January 2023.
 
25. The Panel has considered the submissions of the HCPC as set out in the Skeleton Argument and adopted by Ms Sheridan, together with her oral submissions. The Panel has further considered all the documents to which it has been referred
26. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
 
27. In deciding whether or not approve the agreement for Voluntary Removal the Panel has had regard to the Practice Note published by the HCPTS in March 2018 and entitled Disposal of Cases by Consent.
 
28. The Panel has read a statement from the Registrant which was annexed to the Consensual Disposal application form. The Panel was impressed by the degree of insight that the Registrant displayed. In that document the Registrant speaks of her contrition and remorse at her failings. She accepts that because of her health and a lack of confidence she does not feel able to continue in clinical practice and accordingly decided to retire from practice.
 
29. The Panel has concluded that the VRA should be approved and that an order should be made in the terms set out below . Its reasons are as follows;
 
⦁ The Registrant has admitted the Allegation in full. She has also admitted that her fitness to practise is thereby impaired.
 
⦁ The public will be adequately protected by the voluntary removal of the Registrant’s name from the register, which will have the same effect as if she had been struck off. Such an outcome is also in the interests of the Registrant.
 
⦁ There are no reasons of a public interest kind to require a hearing of the Allegation.
 
30. For all the reasons that are set out above, the Panel has determined to approve the outcome sought in the VRA with immediate effect: In particular, the Panel agrees that the HCPC should be permitted to withdraw the Allegation and that the Registrant shall voluntarily remove her name from the Register with effect from today’s date.

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Jacqueline A Webb from the Register with immediate effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mrs Jacqueline A Webb

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
31/01/2023 Conduct and Competence Committee Voluntary Removal Agreement Voluntary Removal agreed
;