Mrs Margaret Donnelly

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel noted that the Notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant on 2 May 2023. This was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address. The Panel noted that the Notice contained the mandatory requirements as to date, time and mode of hearing. The Notice of hearing was therefore sent in accordance with the Rules on service.

2. The Notice of hearing informed the Registrant that a review of the current Suspension Order would take place today by video conference. The Registrant has not responded to the Notice of hearing. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied Notice was served properly in compliance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Welsh asked the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Procedure Rules and to take into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. She submitted that it was in the public interest for this statutory review hearing to proceed. Ms Welsh noted that the Panel must balance the overriding interest of public protection with fairness to the Registrant.

4. The Panel has considered the HCPTS Practice Note and taken the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel noted that there is an onus on the Registrant to engage with her regulator and there is a statutory requirement for the current Order to be reviewed before it expires. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily chosen not to attend today’s hearing. The Panel noted that there had been no request for an adjournment of today’s hearing, and in any event an adjournment was unlikely to result in the Registrant’s future participation. The Panel therefore concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing in Private

5. Ms Welsh on behalf of the HCPC submitted that this hearing should be held entirely in private, under the Health Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which state: “…the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional, the complainant, any person giving evidence, or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing.”

6. The Panel considered that the concerns raised in this hearing relate to the Registrant’s health, and therefore the Panel considered that it was necessary for the entirety of today’s hearing to be held in private, to protect the Registrant's private life.

Background

7. This is a Review Hearing under Article 30 (1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, which requires the review of a substantive Order prior to its expiry.

8. Mrs Margaret Donnelly ('the Registrant') was employed as a Biomedical Scientist for Western Health and Social Care Trust ('the Trust'). On 13 December 2017, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant.

Legal Assessor’s advice

9. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to take into account the HCPTS Practice Notes on: Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders and Health Allegations and the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

10. Article 30(1) provides that a Conditions of Practice Order or Suspension Order must be reviewed before it expires and that the Reviewing Panel may extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect, make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made or replace a Suspension Order with a Conditions of Practice Order. The Legal adviser agreed with the submissions of Ms Welsh that it is not open to the Panel to impose a Striking-off Order at today’s hearing.

11. The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. The purpose of a review is to consider if the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and, if so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public. The Panel was reminded that the key issue to be addressed is therefore what has changed since the current order was made.

12. The factors to be taken into account by the Panel include the steps the Registrant has taken to address any specific issues identified in the previous decision, the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed. The decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection. Given that part of the Panel’s task is to assess whether the fitness to practise of the Registrant remains impaired, it should also take into account the HCPTS Practice Note. The Panel should also take into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Health Allegations and the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

Decision

13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. The Panel noted that there has been no change in the Registrant’s circumstances, and there was no information before the Panel to suggest any engagement by the Registrant since July 2019. The Registrant has also not complied with the suggestions of the previous Panel by taking any steps in respect of this review hearing.

15. The Panel considered that there was no information before it to demonstrate that the Registrant’s health has improved, or that she has developed insight or remediated her current impairment.

16. The Panel noted that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate to the Panel that she has fully acknowledged the concerns which led to the original finding and has addressed the resulting finding of impairment sufficiently.

17. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both personal and public component grounds. The Panel has no evidence before it to suggest that the Registrant has taken steps to demonstrate she has addressed the previous panel’s finding of impairment. The Panel is also unaware of the Registrant’s current health status. The Panel noted the Registrant expressed an intention not to work as a Biomedical Scientist or renew her registration.

18. The Panel was satisfied that there remained a real risk of relapse in respect of the Registrant’s medical conditions. In the absence of any contrary information, this led to the conclusion that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reasons of health.

19. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on public component grounds. The Panel noted the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel was satisfied that public protection and maintaining proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of no impairment were made. The public would expect the Regulator to take action in cases where underlying health conditions were capable of impairing fitness to practise.

Decision on Sanction

20. In considering the available sanctions today, the Panel considered the options in ascending order of gravity in accordance with the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel noted that it is not the role of the Panel to punish the Registrant for past misdoings, but the Panel should take into account past acts or omissions in determining whether a Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

21. The Panel considered that it was not appropriate or proportionate to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order. Such sanctions would not reflect the seriousness of the matters found proved or denote that the risk of relapse remains.

22. The Panel went on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC, and it is therefore not possible to identify workable and effective conditions. The Sanctions Policy states conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the Registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process. The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was therefore not appropriate.

23. The Panel determined that the only proportionate and appropriate sanction it could impose was a suspension order. The Panel agreed with the submissions of the HCPC that the order should be 3 months in length, in order to provide the Registrant with a final opportunity to engage. The Panel considered this would be a proportionate response to safeguard the public and the wider public interest.

24. The Panel noted it was regrettable that the Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory process since June 2019. The Suspension Order will be reviewed again, before it expires, and the Reviewing Panel will at that stage have the option of a Striking-off Order. The Registrant is encouraged to engage with the next Reviewing Panel and to provide medical evidence of her current health conditions and prognosis.

25. A Reviewing Panel would be greatly assisted by further insight into the Registrant’s current circumstances and information as to whether or not the Registrant wishes to ever return to practice.

26. Given the circumstances of the case, it remains open to the Registrant and the HCPC to explore a Voluntary Removal of the Registrant from the Register, if the Registrant wishes to agree to such a disposal. The Panel encourage the Registrant to engage with the HCPC if this is something which the Registrant wishes to explore.

27. The Registrant will be subject to a Suspension Order for 3 months effective from the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registration of Mrs Margaret Donnelly for a period of 3 months upon the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 29 June 2023.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 29 September 2023.

History of Hearings for Mrs Margaret Donnelly