Sally Clark

Preliminary Matters

The Panel has been convened to consider an application made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant, Ms Sally Clark, an Occupational Therapist, that effect should be given to an agreement for voluntary removal of the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

2. From the papers provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing, the attendance of the Registrant at the hearing had not been expected. However, in the event the Registrant did attend. The Panel is grateful for her attendance.

3. As will be mentioned, an aspect of the HCPC’s allegation against the Registrant concerned her health. At the outset of the hearing the Panel directed that any mention of a specific health condition should be considered in private. In the event, there was not such mention in the hearing, but it will be seen that it has been necessary to produce public and private versions of the Panel’s written determination.

Background

4. On 3 March 2020, the Head of Occupational Therapy for North Cumbria Integrated Care Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) made a referral to the HCPC concerning the Registrant. The referral said that the Registrant had been employed by the Trust as a Band 5 Occupational Therapist from 1 January 2018 until her resignation took effect on 29 February 2022. The referral stated that concerns regarding the Registrant’s practice had been identified early in her employment and continued throughout it. It also stated that in December 2018, the Registrant’s Clinical Lead had instigated a Stage 1 Capability Process, and this had progressed to Stage 2 on 22 October 2019. A reconvened Stage 3 meeting took place on 28 February 2020, shortly followed by the Registrant’s resignation from her employment with the Trust.

5. The Trust provided copious documentation (made available to the present Panel) that was put before a panel of the Investigating Committee when it was asked to make a “case to answer” decision in relation to the allegation. On 20 July 2022, that panel determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the following allegation:

As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT65921) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your lack of competence and/or health. In that:

(1) Between January 2018 and November 2019, you had difficulty managing your time appropriately and/or being organised in that:

a. You had difficulty managing a caseload of more than 5 active cases;
b. You did not deliver the ‘Hip education class’ and/or ‘Orthopaedic Pre-assessment Clinic’, a responsibility of a Band 05 Occupational Therapist.

(2) Between April 2019 and October 2019, you were unable to work autonomously as an occupational therapist in that:

a. Between April 2019 and July 2019, you required Colleague A to lead the home visit when Service User J fell out of bed;

b. On 11 July 2019, you required assistance from Colleague C to complete a home visit for Service User G;

c. On 14 October 2019, you required the assistance of Colleague B to complete your environmental visit of Service User N’s home in that:

i. You did not notice:

1. The chair you were adding the raisers to had different legs and/or that the back right leg was twisted;

2. The castors on the front legs of the chair were loose;

ii. You incorrectly suggested procuring a Storeman to fit the raisers.

(3) Between August 2019 to October 2019 your record keeping was not to the Standard of an occupational therapist in that:

a. Between August 2019 to October 2019, you did not complete your records to an adequate standard for the Service Users outlined in Schedule A.

(4) Between August 2019 and October 2019, you did not consistently state and/or identify and/or clearly state the goals for the Service Users Outlined in Schedule B.

(5) Between August 2019 and October 2019, your clinical reasoning was unclear and/or lacked detail and/or not present for the Service Users listed in Schedule C.

(6) Between August 2019 and October 2019, your personal handling risk assessments and/or equipment risk assessments for the Service Users outlined in Schedule D, were unclear and/or incorrect.

(7) Between August 2019 to September 2019, you did not consider and/or clearly evidence whether the Service Users in Schedule E were eligible for provisions under the Care Act 2014.

(8) Between August 2019 and October 2019, you did not identify and/or minimise risk in that you issued and/or suggested and/or reviewed equipment for the Service Users in Schedule F without first assessing for risk.

(9) Between August 2019 and October 2019, your treatment planning was inadequate in that:

a. You did not correctly plan and/or plan the treatments for the Service Users outlined in Schedule G.

(10) Particulars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and/or 9 amount to lack of competence.

(11) You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule H.

(12) By reason of your lack of competence and/or health your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A
Service User A
Service User B
Service User C
Service User D
Service User N
Service User O
Service User P

Schedule B
Service User A
Service User B
Service User N
Service User O

Schedule C
Service User A
Service User B
Service User C
Service User D
Service User L
Service User M
Service User N
Service User O

Schedule D
Service User D
Service User L
Service User M

Schedule E
Service User A
Service User B
Service User D

Schedule F
Service User A
Service User B
Service User C
Service User D
Service User N
Service User O

Schedule G
Service User A
Service User D
Service User N
Service User O

Schedule H
[IN PRIVATE]

6. The allegation referred by the Investigating Committee is a “dual allegation” as it alleged that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired both by reason of lack of competence and her health. As the referral was made to the Conduct and Competence Committee for resolution, it followed that the allegation founded on lack of competence is the primary allegation; the health allegation being a secondary allegation.

7. When the HCPC’s Solicitors began to investigate the case it was understood that the Registrant had indicated that she no longer wished to practise. Accordingly, discussions about voluntary removal began, and they culminated in both parties stating that they would wish to proceed in that manner. The Registrant was sent the draft agreement on 15 November 2022 and she confirmed receipt of it on 29 November 2022. On 8 December 2022 the Registrant stated that she wished to have further time to consider the matter and to take advice. She eventually wrote to the Solicitors on 22 February 2023 stating that she intended to complete the document and return it, confirming on 7 March 2023 that she has sent it.

The submissions of the parties

8. The Panel was provided with a skeleton argument dated July 2023, prepared on behalf of the HCPC. At the hearing, the Presenting Officer made oral submissions that were consistent with the terms of the skeleton argument. It was acknowledged that the Panel should be satisfied that permitting the Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”) would provide an appropriate level of public protection and would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. It was submitted that the present application satisfied those requirements, and should accordingly be permitted to take effect.

9. When offered the opportunity to make submissions, the Registrant thanked the Panel for the opportunity extended to her, but stated that she did not wish to make any.

The Panel’s decision

10. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Disposal of Cases by Consent”. Accordingly, the Panel sought to be satisfied that:

• The Registrant did indeed wish for her name to be removed from the HCPC Register in the manner and on the terms dictated by the VRA.
• That giving effect to the VRA would afford a proper degree of public protection.
• That there were no other or wider public interest considerations that made disposal by a VRA inappropriate.

11. The Panel was satisfied that the effect of the VRA was indeed sought by the Registrant. Her presence at the hearing reassured the Panel of what emerged from the documentation concerning the care and time she had taken in considering the matter, which clearly demonstrated that she had not taken the decision lightly.

12. So far as the degree of public protection that would be afforded is concerned, the Panel noted that had the allegation proceeded to a final hearing, no greater sanction than a suspension order could have been made in respect of either the primary allegation based on lack of competence or the secondary health allegation. The effect of VRA would be greater and akin to the consequences of a striking off order, as it involves removal from the Register (rather than suspension from it) and that a period of five years must pass before restoration could be sought. Further, by the VRA the Registrant admitted the allegation (including impairment of fitness to practise), and that those admissions could be considered in the event of an application for restoration. In short, no greater public protection could be provided.

13. So far as the wider public interest is concerned, the Panel readily acknowledges that there will be many cases in which it would not be appropriate for fitness to practise proceedings to be resolved in a “back door” manner as a public airing of the issues is required. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel is satisfied that this case, based upon matters that are truly issues of competence and impaired health, is not one of those cases. There would be no public interest served by requiring this case to proceed to a final hearing.

14. For these reasons, the Panel considered that it was appropriate to permit the VRA to be given effect. Accordingly, the Panel Chair will sign the Notice of Withdrawal.

Decision on Application

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Sally Clark from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Sally Clark