Miss Helen M Orme

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel was satisfied by the documents in the service bundle that the Registrant was properly served with notice of this hearing by an email dated 13 April 2023 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) (Rules 2003 (the Rules). Delivery was confirmed by email of the same date.

2. On behalf of the HCPC Ms Khan made an application under Rule 11 of the Rules for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She referred to an email dated 4 May 2023 from the Registrant to the HCPC by which the Registrant stated that she would not attend today’s review hearing. Ms Khan submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and waived her right to attend. Ms Khan reminded the Panel that today’s hearing is a mandatory review which needs to take place before the expiry of the Suspension Order. She submitted that there was no reason to believe that the Registrant would attend if the hearing were adjourned to another date prior to the expiry of the Order. She submitted that it was in the public interest for the review to take place without delay.

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. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had waived her right to attend the hearing. The Registrant had not applied for an adjournment. The Panel determined that it was in the public interest that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist. At the relevant time she was employed in that capacity by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (“the Borough Council”). On 4 June 2019 the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC to declare a police conditional caution, which she had received on 15 January 2017. The caution was for an offence of criminal damage in 2016 when the Registrant, in the context of a dispute with her ex-partner, scratched his car with a fork.

5. The Registrant had previously renewed her registration with the HCPC online on 5 October 2017 but had not declared the fact that she had received this caution. The Registrant had also failed to notify the Borough Council that she had received the caution until shortly before a DBS check was due.

6. At the substantive hearing the HCPC offered no evidence in respect of particular 5. The Registrant admitted particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4 but denied particulars 5 and 6. The panel found all the particulars of the allegation proved apart from particular 5.

7. The panel found misconduct in relation to particulars 2, 3, 4 and 6. The panel found that the Registrant had been in breach of the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016):

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession

9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if …. you accept a caution from the police ….

8. The panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in respect of both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment.

9. In relation to the “personal” component, the panel considered that the Registrant was unlikely to repeat the conduct which had resulted in the police caution. However, the panel was of the view that the Registrant’s denial of dishonesty in concealing the police caution indicated a lack of insight. In addition, the Registrant had provided no evidence of meaningful reflection or remediation. The panel concluded that the Registrant was liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute, to breach fundamental tenets and to act dishonestly. Accordingly, her fitness to practise was impaired with regard to the “personal” component.

10. In relation to the “public” component, the panel considered that the fact of receiving a police caution for criminal damage was a serious matter for which a finding of impairment was required to uphold proper standards and maintain public confidence in the profession.

11. The panel also considered that the Registrant’s failure to be open and honest to her employer and the HCPC about the police caution required a finding of current impairment.

12. With regard to sanction, the panel decided to impose a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

13. The panel advised that a subsequent reviewing panel might be assisted by the following:

i. A written reflective statement from the Registrant demonstrating:

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty from the perspective of the service user;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty as a member of the OT profession, upholding a fundamental tenet of the profession;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty from the perspectives of both the Council and the HCPC;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty with regard to public perception;

⦁ an understanding of her dishonesty on all parties referred to in the previous bullet points and what steps she can take to avoid acting dishonestly in the future.

ii. Evidence of the Registrant keeping her knowledge of the OT profession up to date;

iii. Any testimonials or references relating to work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or voluntary.

Today’s hearing

14. The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a bundle of documents which included the decision of the panel at the substantive hearing.

15. On behalf of the HCPC Ms Khan submitted that, in the absence of any engagement by the Registrant with the HCPC since the imposition of the Suspension Order, her fitness to practise remains impaired.

16. Ms Khan referred the Panel to the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy and submitted that either a Striking Off or a short Suspension Order to give the Registrant a further opportunity to address the outstanding concerns about her fitness to practise might be appropriate.

17. The Panel received no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

The Panel’s decision

18. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

19. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her having received a police caution and/or by her misconduct.

20. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC where it was stated that in practical terms there is a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

21. The Panel found that the Registrant had failed to take any steps to discharge this burden by addressing the fitness to practise concerns identified at the substantive hearing and that, accordingly, her fitness to practise remains impaired.

22. With regard to the police caution, the Panel considered the Suspension Order of 12 months sufficiently marked the seriousness of the fact of the Registrant had received the caution and that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired in that regard.

23. With regard to the Registrant’s misconduct in relation to her dishonest concealment of the caution, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not undertaken any of the steps recommended by the panel at the substantive hearing for the purpose of this review. In these circumstances, the Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had addressed any of the concerns relating to her fitness to practise. It followed that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden referred to above. The Panel therefore found that her fitness to practise remains impaired having regard to both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment.

24. With regard to sanction, the Panel took into account the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy. The Panel gave appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.

25. The Panel considered that the concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise were too serious for the imposition of a Caution Order.

26. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate, given that the Registrant’s misconduct does not relate to her competence as an Occupational Therapist but appears to be attitudinal in nature.

27. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order. The panel at the substantive hearing, when imposing the Suspension Order, had given the Registrant an opportunity to address the findings that her fitness to practise was impaired. They had also made clear to the Registrant what she needed to do to prepare for, and participate in, the subsequent review hearing. It is very disappointing that the Registrant has failed to take the opportunity provided to her.

28. The Panel today gave serious consideration to imposing a Striking Off Order but decided that, on balance, the Registrant should be given a further opportunity to address the concerns identified at the substantive hearing. The Panel therefore decided to impose a further Suspension Order for a period of 6 months upon the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

29. At the next review, the panel is likely to be assisted by the following:

i. The Registrant’s attendance at the hearing.

ii. A written reflective statement from the Registrant demonstrating:

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty from the perspective of the service user;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty as a member of the OT profession, upholding a fundamental tenet of the profession;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty from the perspectives of both the Council and the HCPC;

⦁ an understanding of the importance of honesty with regard to public perception;

⦁ an understanding of her dishonesty on all parties referred to in the previous bullet points and what steps she can take to avoid acting dishonestly in the future.

iii. Evidence of the Registrant keeping her knowledge of the OT profession up to date;

iv. Any testimonials or references relating to work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or voluntary.

30. The Registrant should be in no doubt that if she fails to engage with the HCPC between now and the next review, there is a significant risk that she will be subject to a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Helen M. Orme for a period of 6 months from the date of the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

This Order comes into effect on 09 June 2023 and will expire on 09 December 2023.

History of Hearings for Miss Helen M Orme