Jane Kelly

 

 

1. While there was no application for any matters to be in private, the Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that should private matters arise, the Panel could of its own volition decide to move into private session, and that she would provide legal advice as required.

 

 

2. Dr Kelly was a registered Practitioner Psychologist at the relevant time concerning matters that bring her before this Panel. 

 

3. In September 2015 Dr Kelly started treating Service User A for anger management issues and domestic violence.  After a short break in therapy the treatment recommenced in December 2015. On the 14 March 2016 Service User A made a complaint about Dr Kelly.

 

4. Dr Kelly admitted that she had a personal relationship with Service User A. Further Dr Kelly admitted that a sexual relationship between the two of them began in February 2016.   It was only following the complaint about Dr Kelly that matters came to light.

 

5. On 10 May 2017, at a Fitness to Practise hearing of the HCPTS, further to the admissions and the evidence before it, the Panel found that Dr Kelly had a sexual relationship with Service User A while providing psychological treatment. It found that she acted in a sexually motivated manner and breached professional boundaries. As a consequence, the Panel found that this amounted to misconduct and that Dr Kelly was impaired on both the personal and public component. Dr Kelly was struck off the Register.

 

 

6. At today’s hearing Dr Kelly provided a bundle of 163 pages in which she listed the training, a range of therapeutic interventions, her reflections, ways of being and risk assessment document, multi professional testimonials and a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) log covering the last six years. This was preceded by a detailed timeline. 

 

7. She explained that she was now aware of the damage that she had caused to individuals, the profession and the public historically. She said that in 2017, she was in denial and trying to minimise her wrongdoing. She said that she was “deeply disappointed” in herself in setting out “contributing factors” to her wrongdoing, (living in a rural environment or having a professional support network), which although accurate, did not detract from her responsibility.

 

8. She said that she now recognised the magnitude of her “severe misconduct” and did not previously want to accept the ripple effect of her wrongdoing and failed to accept full responsibility for what she had done. She said that having reflected, undergone therapy, and undertaken the Maintaining Professional Boundaries Course that she has been able to step forward and recognise the extent of her wrongdoing.

 

9. She said that at the time she was struck-off she had a period of reflection. She said she was not sure what to do next and wanted to show how seriously she took the matter. She commenced an administrative job to reduce any likelihood of risk of repetition, and wanted to undertake therapy but could not afford this. Instead, she sought the support of former colleagues. She said she was in flux about her future but wanted to use the skills she said. She said she deliberated about training as a Life Coach but was conscious that it was close to her former role.

 

10. She said that she undertook the learning for being trained as a Life Coach mainly for the love of learning, and completed a Diploma covering Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), part-time over seven months, graduating in September 2018. She said that during the Diploma course the students coached each other which she had found helpful. In October 2018 she began to see coaching clients of her own virtually.

 

11. She said that she was cautious about working with clients, because she was concerned about risk-assessing what she did and separating her psychology training from her coaching training. She said she undertook her own life coaching in July 2019 to work through possible safety concerns in her working with her own clients. The sessions commenced with a view to addressing how to run a coaching business but in fact covered therapeutic matters spanning her childhood to recent divorce which she found very helpful. That work is evidenced by a letter from her Life Coach which she said reflected that she had been open and honest about being struck-off by HCPC.

 

12. She said that she reflected that Coaching was not regulated unlike the profession of Psychology and that having supervision was important as a way of reflecting on practice. She also reflected that this allowed standards to be met, that learning and development can be captured and evidenced in a Personal Development Plan (PDP) and to be accountable for actions, and risk-assessing. She also told the Panel that she had sought a Coach Supervisor and obtained one named Dr Benjamin. She said that Dr Benjamin helped her address the issues relating to her misconduct and gave her confidence and support eventually suggesting that she apply for restoration to the HCPC Register. She produced a reference that Dr Benjamin had written in support of this. 

 

13. She said that by September 2021, she was working as a Talking Therapist at a college, but remained very sensitive to boundaries. She gave the example of being asked if she had a pet of her own by a student, which caused her concern about boundaries and self-disclosure and she discussed this with her supervisor. She told the Panel that this is because she is aware that small relaxations can lead to breaches of professional boundaries.

 

14. She said that she undertook reflective learning and considered how technology and coaching accounts needed to be carefully operated to prevent any blurring of social/professional lines. She also maintained therapeutic work to increase her own self-understanding to comprehend how the events that had led to being struck-off had occurred to prevent recurrence. She said that psycho-dynamic psycho-therapy (PDPT) leaves “no stone unturned”; she felt that this was necessary because although she was confident in her skill-set, was concerned at her lack of insight and wanted to be a safe practitioner. A reference evidencing her PDPT over a year was provided.

 

15. She said that the Professional Boundaries Course was a three day course that was virtual because of the pandemic. It was a group learning process in an intensive emotional environment. It was an expensive course that was very thorough. It covered power, accountability, dynamics, and boundaries, requiring preparation in advance and a commitment to a PDP for the future. It forced her to address feelings of shame and inadequacy and to move on to work in a professional way accepting accountability for her actions, and be open and honest. She has shared her PDP with her current supervisor and manager.

 

16. She explained that she is now able to work closely with other therapists and residential staff for people for physical and emotional needs. Her role involves support for the emotional needs of students. She said that she was known as the “Boundaries Queen” at college because she was hyper-aware of issues of professional boundaries. She said that she had also attended in-person training on National Safeguarding. She explained that she now kept a log of CPD since starting her role at the college including courses undertaken, and reading done. She corrected one typographical error she had made regarding dates.  She explained what she had learnt through the different training events. She explained that via her attendance at residential Grief Recovery Programme she had made a friend who was a registered British Advisory and Counselling Practitioner and who had provided a character-reference reflecting that she had been honest and open about her strike-off.

 

17. She said that she is deeply shocked and sad that she has acted in this way given the way it impacted the Service User, so many other people, the profession and the regulator. She said that she had learnt about her personal vulnerabilities and that PDPT has enabled her to have self-discovery. She said that she has set up a supportive professional network and two supervisors are now in place to act as additional safeguards.

 

18. She said when asked what three things she would flag to a new practitioner:

- It is often the small glitches in crossing boundaries can lead to bigger boundary violations

- It is never the intention of a practitioner to exhibit misconduct, so it is important to be vigilant to how one works and it is important to set up safeguards and reflective practice to be a safe practitioner.

- Be honest when things go wrong and have integrity.

 

19. In cross-examination, Dr Kelly agreed:

 

• She has calculated the number of days as her training to return to work as 162;

• Her supervised practice days were reflective of academic training because she was under the supervision of a clinical psychologist;

• Her sessions with Dr Benjamin moved from Coaching Supervision to remedial work and career preparedness rather than clinical cases;

• Her sessions with Dr Benjamin for Coaching Supervision were weekly, extensive, and learning how to be a safe coach, and how to access CPD to address gaps in her knowledge, such as self-disclosure, transference and reflective practice. She described how she was going to build a Psychology Practice and how she planned to undertake updating courses such as Safeguarding, Mental Health Act and legislation, Health & Safety and I.T. She said that it was not about identifying gaps in clinical practice that was unsafe but from moving from coaching to psychology;

• She described transference from patients to the practitioners, or vice versa, and that it was a professional requirement to be aware of this. She said internal and external supervision can address this and she brings such issues to her supervisors which is normal practice;

• She gave examples of her practice around managing professional boundaries and how she discusses this with her Supervisor; 

• Dr Kelly provided more details of the content of the Professional Boundaries training. She said that each participant had to be open about what had occurred to bring them to the course, power imbalances, and transference, along with the full extent of harm that could be caused, along with examining vulnerabilities and the importance of sharing this with a Supervisor;

• She gave further details of her CPD log including formal and private study;

• With regard to insight and remediation that relate to the Dr Kelly’s health, she was confident that she now looked after her health;

• With regard to professional safeguards, Dr Kelly told the Panel she is confident of her supportive supervisors, her safeguarding plan, and that if something similar were to occur again, that she would carefully and suitably terminate the working relationship;

• She described how the impact of her conduct on her colleagues was a shock given that she had acted completely out of character, and they had the burden of having to deal with this professionally, with respect to her and her clients, within a private practice. She said that it also brought the profession into disrepute and she was embarrassed, given the years of training, she had undertaken. She said it was “horrible” that she had acted so “appallingly” and she recognised that it took courage for a member of the public to come forward for help;

• She agreed that it was a concern that a member of the public would not trust her. However, she was confident that her professionalism has been built up through her work over the last six years, which can be evidenced.

• She said she is now conducting cognitive assessment which is more akin to a Clinical Psychologist role than a Counsellor at the college.

• She said that it is ethically right for her to call herself as Clinical Psychologist and be regulated as such, taking on more responsibility, that she feels ready for.

 

20. In response to Panel questions, she added:

• She would always have an external supervisor even if she left the college or the role envisaged for her was not available. She said she now felt confident about contacting social services and would continue individual safeguards concerning emails, meetings, accessing a professional network of colleagues in any future role even if working in private practice. 

 

 

21. On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Walker submitted that the Panel should be guided by the HCPTS Practice Note on Restoration to the Register, dated June 2022. The application for restoration was supported by the assertion that there are more than 60 days of updated education, and in the Applicant’s case more than 160 days, that have been evidenced. Further, that the Applicant has provided extensive written documentation and oral evidence that can persuade the Panel.

 

22. In terms of whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be restored at this moment in time, it was accepted that the Panel would need to consider whether the Applicant remains impaired. Mr Walker submitted that the Panel would consider whether the misconduct is:

- i) Remediable: noting that although not remedied at the time of her Fitness to Practise hearing, where that Panel considered that Dr Kelly had understood the magnitude of her conduct, but not described the conduct as incapable of remediation.

- ii) Remedied: taking into account the extensive therapeutic and reflection that the Applicant has undertaken over the last six years.

- iii) Highly unlikely to repeat conduct: her insight, personal and professional safeguards, her support systems to prevent repetition should satisfy the Panel. Further, she is trusted by her current employer to undertake assessments of young people and wants her to supervise others.

 

23. Mr Walker submitted that the criteria for restoration had been satisfied. Her strike-off did not relate to clinical competence but an attitudinal issue which has been addressed via extensive remediation. Accordingly, this was a case where readmission need not be conditional.

 

 

24. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khan submitted that the Panel could not be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person considering the circumstances that led to removal from the Register.  She submitted that the decision on the Applicant’s Fitness to Practise hearing detailed matters that have not been addressed satisfactorily now, including:

- concern regarding misconduct, and not being satisfied that if faced with a similar matter the Applicant would behave differently;

- using the fact that she lived in a rural environment to explain or excuse her behaviour;

- suggesting that professional supervision was not available in a rural setting when this was not the case.

 

25. She submitted that there was concern that the Registrant at the final hearing given her lack of insight, could not remedy this misconduct, given her emphasis on how she was unprepared by her “strength of feeling” for the service user, and how this took her “by surprise” suggested that she lacked accountability, behaved in an entirely unacceptable way that fell far below the standard required of a Clinical Psychologist. She had breached HCPC Standards, in particular Standard 3: which required a high standard of personal conduct, and Standard 13: which required her to behave with honesty and integrity.

 

26. Ms Khan pointed to a number of aggravating features as identified in the Final Fitness to Practise hearing determination, including that Dr Kelly had abused a position of responsibility; breached a fundamental tenet of the profession that requires her to provide care to a vulnerable person and prioritise their needs, commenced a sexual relationship with someone she had committed to treat, and has focused on excusing her behaviour perhaps, by focusing on transference. She said that the reality was that Dr Kelly had not sought professional supervision that was available to her at the time, and accordingly, supervisors in place now would not alone would be able to mitigate concerns. She concluded that to return the Applicant to the Register would present a risk to public confidence, as the Applicant herself acknowledges there are issues of trust and confidence that feature. She said that the overarching objective of the Regulator should be considered and that working as a coach and therapist did not require registration. Her response to the Application for Restoration was that the Panel had to be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person who would not repeat her behaviour, and that the HCPC resisted the application.

 

27. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in making its decision. Her advice echoed that in the relevant Practice Note, as supported by case law.

 

Decision

 

28. Throughout the decision-making process the Panel has borne in mind the overarching objective of protecting, promoting and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public; promoting and maintaining public confidence; and promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct. It considered the application on behalf of Dr Kelly for the restoration of her name to the Register following a sanction of strike off being imposed in May 2017.

 

29. This was Dr Kelly’s first application for restoration, and the Panel took into account the HCPC’s objections, the material before it, and guidance provided by the Legal Assessor and the relevant Practice Note.

 

30. The Panel considered both:

 

• whether the Applicant met the general requirements for registration and 

• whether she is a fit and proper person to practise as a Psychologist, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to her striking off.

 

31. In terms of undertaking the 60 days education to return to practice, the Panel noted that Dr Kelly has provided information which indicated 162 days of education have been completed. It noted that the HCPC took exception to self-study being included in this, but took into account the certificates of attendance at courses, both on-line and in-person and certificates of qualifications she had obtained. These covered both generic learning and learning specific to Dr Kelly’s current and future roles. 

 

32. The Panel was aware that while the reading, counselling, therapy and courses were detailed, that there was no one table of information that broke down the split between each undertaking, and the number of hours this accounted for. However, it was of the view that it should be possible to produce the same administratively to satisfy the requirements for restoration. 

 

33. In relation to being a fit and proper person, the Panel considered whether Dr Kelly was still impaired, taking into account the criteria listed in the relevant Practice Note. 

 

34. In respect of the matters that led to the striking off and the reasons given by the original Panel for imposing that sanction, it was of the view that Dr Kelly’s incomplete insight was demonstrated at that time, with a tendency to blame external events for her wrongdoing, such as a lack of available supervisor in a rural setting. Her actions were an abuse of power and position that warranted the sanction of strike off. Dr Kelly did not recognise the impact of her actions on others at the Final Hearing and focused on minimising her actions.

 

35. The Panel concluded that this contrasts sharply with her evidence before it at this hearing. It accepted that Dr Kelly acknowledged that her insight was incomplete at the time of the Final Hearing and that she now understands the profound unacceptability of her conduct, which no circumstances can excuse. She clarified that the reference to being in a rural setting was no excuse for her conduct.

 

36. The Panel heard and accepted that Dr Kelly had demonstrated how she now understands how the events that led to her strike off arose. The Panel accepted she has undertaken extensive therapy, counselling, reflection and learning, focusing on self-discovery to better identify her own weaknesses and how these can continue to be addressed going forward. Further she has listened to feedback from her supervisors and managers and taken steps to implement safeguards in her personal and professional life in order prevent any recurrence. The Panel saw and accepted evidence that Dr Kelly actively uses her supervision sessions to monitor her performance, reflect on her practice and recognises the need to have robust risk-assessment of her practice, making honest and open declarations about her performance. Evidence of these activities were seen in her, SOAP notes (Subjective Account, Objective Description, Analysis of Incident, Personal Learning), risk assessment table, and notes on completion of the Professional Boun