HCPTS |

Profession: Operating department practitioner

Registration Number: ODP22680

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 15/04/2024 End: 17:00 15/04/2024

Location: This hearing is being held remotely via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: No further action

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

As a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP22680) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:

1. On or around 31 July 2019 you fraudulently compiled and signed a list of training courses on Yeovil District Hospital headed paper and submitted this to support an application.

2. On or around 31 July 2019 you falsified certificates submitted with your application.

3. You did not attend the training listed on certificates submitted with your application.

4. On or around 5 August 2019 you did not admit to fraudulently compiling and signing a training list when questioned by your employer.

5. Your conduct in relation to allegation 1,2,3 and 4 was dishonest.

6. The reason set out at allegation 1,2,3,4 and 5 constitute misconduct.

7. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Bundle

1. The Panel has been provided with a substantive bundle of documents which runs to 51 pages.

2. The Panel was also provided with a Registrant’s bundle of 16 pages.

Application for hearing to be heard partially in Private

3. Ms Khorassani, on behalf of the HCPC applied for the hearing to be heard partially in private, so as to protect the private life of the Registrant, in so far as there were references to either her health, or private life. The Registrant supported the application.

4. Having taken the Legal Assessor’s advice and having considered the HCPTS Practice Note: Conducting Hearings in Private, the Panel agreed that the hearing should be held partly in private, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant in accordance with Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Background

5. The Registrant is an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) who was employed by Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) between April 2010 and November 2016. She rejoined as an agency ODP in January 2018.

6. During July 2019, the Registrant was employed to work at Yeovil District Hospital via the agency Total Assist. She submitted a mandatory training record to Your World which was passed on to Yeovil District Hospital Academy (the Academy) to verify. The Academy did not recognise the signature, which was queried with the Registrant by witness, LB, a Matron for the Trust.

7. At a meeting on 9 August 2019, the Registrant allegedly told LB, that she had not attended the training in the Academy or attended any other re-cent training to reflect the training certificate. She allegedly admitted that she had made up the training record, forged the signature and used the Trust’s logo to make the document appear official. Witness, JV, Theatre Services Manager at Yeovil District Hospital, raised a Fitness to Practise Concern with the HCPC on 20 August 2019.

8. Thereafter, the Registrant denied the allegations at the final hearing, as set out in the substantive decision below:

59. This is a rather unusual case, in that until several weeks before this final hearing, the Registrant had admitted the allegations in full and she had submitted a 16 page written submission to an ICP hearing at the HCPC in July 2020 setting out, in detail, her position and explaining why she had done what was alleged. The Registrant in that submission explained her motivation was to avoid paying a £45 fee requested by another agency for a copy of her training certificate. She explained her position as follows:-

“The following words are my own (Sarah McCamley) and relate to the incident which occurred in August 2019.

I was currently engaged as a Locum ODP at Yeovil Hospital when I decided to change agencies as my current one was causing a lot of problems for me. During the course of registering for a new agency, I had to produce a certificate of mandatory training which we must complete each year. I had completed one with the troublesome agency, who decided that they would not release a copy of a course I had completed unless I paid them £45. As I may use it to register with another agency. This is illegal underemployment law as certificates for professional qualifications belong to you not he (SIC) employer; even if they had paid for the course. This was so frustrating. Added to this was the new agency ringing me at least 5 times per day asking if I had got a certificate to complete my file so as to be allowed to work for them. Coupled to this, my stress over my relationship with my ex-husband at the time was causing me to think irrationally.

There seemed to be an impasse With regards to this situation. But then I had a thought, a stupid thought none the less. I will just make one up now and when the real one comes, I can forward that to the new agency who can then scrap the one I have made for a legitimate one. What could go wrong I thought? I am covered legally as I completed the study day, I just can’t show it as of yet, so this certificate will be ok. What I didn't realise is the new agency have a policy of verification of certificates to trusts. This is the reason why I was caught. I understand this process and I am fully behind it as it does help to stop truly dangerous registrants who shouldn't be on the register. I don't believe this is the case for me. I have worked for over 20 years in a profession in which I am so proud to be a member of. I take pride in my work at all times. My patients are the most important people in the theatre at any given time.”

60. The Panel considered that the Registrant in this original submission, set out a clear, plausible and credible account of her actions, explaining her motives and demonstrating remorse and some insight into her actions and why they were wrong. She explained her disclosure to her colleague LB, from whom the Panel has heard. To the extent of her involvement, LB’s account is consistent with that of the Registrant in this submission and in her live evidence regarding admission of the forged certificate.

61. For the sake of completeness that Panel would want to make clear its position in relation to the Registrant’s denial in live evidence of her having written some of the paragraphs in her written submission to the ICP in July 2020, that is in relation to her previous account and admission of the allegation. She accepted in her live evidence that she had read her written submissions at the time and she had submitted them to the HCPC, her professional regulator. She states in those submissions:- “The following words are my own…” The Registrant could not explain how it was that certain paragraphs were, in fact, not her own work, including the one explaining her mo-tive to forge the 30 certificate to avoid the £45 charge. She did not say how it was these paragraphs appeared in her submissions, or who had written them.

62. Although this submission does not bear directly on the allegation, the Panel found this issue was one upon which the Registrant placed some reliance, and it is of some importance in the assessment of her credibility. The Panel found that her position on this matter was not credible or plausible and the Panel did not believe the Registrant when she said the submission was not her own work.

The evidence of the controlling and coercive relationship with TC

63. The Registrant has materially changed her position and has withdrawn her admissions and the explanations previously made by her to the ICP. She is entitled to do so and she is entitled to deny the Allegation. This change in her position emerged several weeks before this final hearing when the Registrant obtained legal representation and instructed Mr Marsland.

64. The Panel has now heard from the Registrant that at the time of the allegation she was in a coercive and controlling relationship with TC. In an email the Panel were shown dated 21 November 2022 from her Counsel, Mr Marsland, he set out the Registrant’s position as follows:- “On taking instructions from Ms McCamley it was apparent that she wished to contest the allegations; her case being that she had nothing to do with the forgery and, in fact, it had been submitted by her (now ex) partner without her knowledge. Moreover, the ‘confessions’ she had made were false.”

65. The Registrant’s evidence in her witness statement describes that relationship.

66. In these circumstances, the Panel is required to carefully consider both accounts given by the Registrant. It has weighed and assessed that evidence and looked at the way in which the Registrant’s evidence fits with any non-contentious evidence or agreed facts, with contemporaneous documents, and considered the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of her two accounts of events, as well as consistencies and inconsistencies, both internally, and with the evidence of others.

67. The Registrant now asserts a positive defence, namely that her relationship with TC was such that she made false admissions to the conduct and dishonesty alleged at the time, and she supported that with her written submissions to the ICP in July 2020. Further, the Panel is asked by the Registrant to conclude that TC forged and submitted the certificate without her knowledge or consent. To make such findings, the Panel requires a proper evidential basis, and it requires sufficient, cogent evidence to make such findings on the balance of probabilities.

68. The Panel noted that the entirety of the evidence about her relationship with TC is in the Registrant’s formal witness statement, as set out above. The Panel did not hear live evidence from the Registrant about her relationship with TC. The Panel heard no evidence from any friends, family or associates that may have been able, to some extent, to support the Registrant’s account of her relationship with TC.

69. The Panel is aware of the nature, seriousness and prevalence of controlling relationships. However, that does not avoid the need for sufficient evidence to support such a position. The nature of the relationship is a question of fact for the Panel, and the Registrant seeks to prove that, and she asks the Panel to make a positive factual finding in that regard. The Registrant relies on a positive finding of fact as to the nature of the relationship to explain her conduct and her false admissions, including her previous version of events. The Panel was mindful that facts must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

70. The Registrant told the Panel that she had been unable until now, to tell anyone that TC had forged and submitted the training certificate in the email dated 14 June 2019 to JM at Your World, and that he had done so without her knowledge or consent. The Registrant told the Panel that she had ended her relationship with TC in January 2022. The Registrant’s position altered some three weeks before this hearing and a witness statement was lodged on day three.

71. The Registrant gave no live evidence in respect of what was a central plank of her case and, indeed, largely her defence to this Allegation and dishonesty. This was a relationship which the Registrant sought to prove explained both her earlier, false admissions and the forged certificate. That was expressed by her as being her decision. She was not able to plausibly explain why she had taken no steps whatsoever since January 2022 to contact the HCPC to advise it of her change in circumstances and tell the HCPC about her materially altered position in relation to the Allegation.

72. The only evidence about the relationship with TC that the Panel had before it was a short written account from the Registrant about that relationship (as quoted in full above). The Registrant gave no live evidence about it, and the Panel had no other evidence before it to support that position. There was no independent evidence, despite reference to some circumstances which had apparently involved third parties, such as the police and the courts. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant had failed to prove the existence of a controlling and coercive relationship with TC in relation to and at the time of the allegation.

9. The substantive hearing panel found all the facts of the Allegation proven. In relation to Particular 1, the panel found:

73. The Panel considered all the evidence before it. The Registrant now states that she knew nothing of the 14 June 2019 email sent by TC.

74. The Panel considered the emails. On 12 June 2019 JM emailed the Registrant asking her for further details. He asked her to update some details, such as her passport details which had “expired” on the Your World system. The Registrant replied on 13 June 2019 at 4.43pm attaching some of the requested documentation. She sent another email later that day attaching her CV at 16.57; and she completed and attached the required drug calculation test in a further email to JM at 17.39 that day.

75. The Panel noted that the Registrant states in her witness statement that TC was with her when she sent these emails and states:- “I would have needed his help to attach the documents.” When questioned by the Panel, the Registrant also said that she had no recollection of discussing the emails and the training certificate with TC at the time. The Panel noted that the three emails that were sent by the Registrant on 13 June 2019 all had attachments on them.

76. The Panel considered the crucial email sent by TC to JM the next day, 14 June 2019 at 08.19. It does not, in fact, show or refer to any attachment, as do the three emails sent by the Registrant the previous day. This email simply states:- “Cert signed!!!!! Is this all she needs now????” It says nothing else. The Panel noted that it was the evidence of SD that the falsified certificate was attached to this email from TC. Although it is not evident on the face of the email, the Panel accepted the evidence of SD and that she was correct when she told the Panel that this email attached the false certificate. There is no contention by either party that this email from TC did not attach the allegedly forged certificate.

77. The three emails sent by the Registrant on 13 June 2019 had attachments. That day she had successfully attached a number of documents to three emails to JM responding to his request promptly. She accepted that she had done so. The next day TC sent the false certificate. It is the Registrant’s evidence that she was not “tech savvy”. The Panel does not accept that. It flies in the face of the evidence in the 13 June 2019 emails sent by her. The Panel found that she knew how to send emails with attachments, and indeed she had demonstrated that.

78. The Registrant says that the email from TC to Your World on 14 June 2019 was sent without her knowledge or consent. She was unable to explain how it was that TC knew a certificate was outstanding, and she 36 stated in her evidence that it must have been a coincidence that TC sent the certificate the day after she had been asked for it by Your World. She said that TC had assisted her, but she also said that she did not recall any discussions with TC about the certificate at the time. She said that she had realised at some point in time, but could not recall when, that she knew the certificate had been sent but that she had thought it was another training certificate from Total Assist (which was an authentic training certificate). She could not explain to the Panel when and how she realised TC had sent the forged certificate or indeed why he would forge one when she had an authentic one. LB said the Registrant did not express surprise when confronted with the forged certificate and simply admitted forging it.

79. The Panel had no evidence as to what possible motive TC would have had to do as the Registrant asserts, that is to forge and submit a training certificate. The Registrant said in her witness statement that she did not know why TC had sent the certificate. She did not suggest any motive for TC’s actions and she claimed that his sending of the email the day after her, on 13 June 2019, was coincidental. Even if there had been a controlling relationship, a scenario which the Panel has rejected, that does not explain why TC would do as he did. The Registrant herself said she wanted to apply to Your World and her actions the day before, on 12 June 2019 in sending the three emails to JM, were consistent with that.

80. The Panel found that these varying accounts from the Registrant made little sense, they were not consistent and it found that they were inherently contradictory and improbable. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s account that she had no knowledge of the 14 June 2019 email, which it found was neither credible nor plausible.

81. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence that she had already done the required training confused and somewhat incoherent. If the 37 Registrant had done the required annual training, why had she not simply told JM that was the case, and that she would send the genuine certificate once she had it? She also said that she was concentrating on applying for another permanent role, but that was not to the point and did not explain the emails she sent to Your World on 13 June 2019. The Panel found this explanation served to further undermine the plausibility and credibility of the Registrant's account as a whole.

82. The Panel found that the Registrant’s account that she did not compile the training certificate, and had no knowledge and did not consent to the 14 June 2019 email from TC was not plausible or credible. Given the surrounding circumstances where the Registrant herself sent emails and attachments the previous day, the Panel found that it was inherently improbable that TC forged and then sent the certificate. Why would TC want to or need to send the email for her with the certificate given it was clear she was capable of sending emails and attachments, as she had done several times the previous day?

83. The Panel was mindful of the wording of the particular, that is that the Registrant “compiled" the list and then “arranged” for this to be submitted. The issue is not binary, it need not be the case that it was either the Registrant or TC who arranged for the list to be submitted. TC did send the email and it may be that TC was involved to some extent, but that does not mean the Registrant did not “compile” or “arrange”. The Panel has rejected the Registrant’s accounts as incredible. Indeed, the Panel considered that her original version of events in her written submissions and admissions in July 2020 were more plausible and credible.

84. The Panel concluded in all the circumstances that it was more likely than not that the Registrant compiled and then arranged for the list to be submitted and it found this particular proved.

10. The substantive hearing panel also found Particular 2 proved:

85. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s version of events for the reasons set out above. It follows from that reasoning that the Panel concluded that it was the Registrant who falsified her training record dated 7 April 2019 and submitted it when she arranged for it to be emailed by TC to JM on 14 June 2019 as part of the application process to Your World, about which there is no contention that she had earlier commenced and corresponded with JM.

86. The Panel found no plausible evidence that TC falsified the training records. There was, in any event, no motive for TC to falsify the training records as the Registrant was already in the process of applying to Your World and had sent an application and several emails. That TC may also have been involved is not to the point.

87. As set out in the reasoning above, the Panel found that it did not believe the Registrant’s account that TC forged, and then submitted the training certificate to JM on 14 June 2019 without her knowledge or her consent. This particular is proved.

11. The substantive hearing panel also found Particular 3 proved:

88. The Panel has not accepted the Registrant’s account of events and has found Particulars 1 and 2 proved. It accordingly finds that the Registrant did not attend the training listed on the training records compiled by her and dated 7 April 2019. The Registrant accepted in her evidence that she did not attend all of the courses detailed on the forged certificate. This particular is proved.

12. The substantive hearing panel also found Particular 4 proved:

89. The Panel considered the Ivey test. It concluded that the Registrant knew at the time she had not done the training claimed in the certificate, and that the training record or certificate that she compiled and arranged to submit to Your World was false. That was dishonest, and the Registrant knew that to be the case. Considered objectively, the Panel decided that any ordinary and decent member of the public would consider that what the Registrant did in respect of Particular 1, 2 and 3 to be dishonest. She lied, sought to deceive and was dishonest. This particular is proved.

13. The substantive hearing panel also found the Registrant’s actions amounted to misconduct:

90. The Panel has found the Allegation proved, and this includes dishonesty. It was mindful of the guidance in Roylance. The Panel decided that to falsify and arrange to submit a false training certificate was conduct that fell well below what would have been proper in the circumstances and whether separately or together was serious and amounted to misconduct. It breached the most fundamental professional standards of trust, integrity and honesty.

14. The substantive hearing panel also found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, having considered both the personal and public components if impairment:

91. The Panel was mindful of the guidance on impairment in the HCPC Practice Note and in Grant and accepted the legal advice. It considered the central issues of remorse, remediation, insight and the risk of repetition. It was mindful of the public interest element of impairment and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards.

92. The Panel has found that the Registrant has been dishonest. The Panel found that the Registrant expressed remorse and apologised in her original submissions where she admitted the conduct, and showed some developing insight. However, in this somewhat unusual case, 40 there has been a material change in the Registrant’s position away from her earlier admissions. The original expressions of remorse and insight are accordingly, no longer the Registrant’s position. The misconduct is serious, but it is remediable, although the Panel accepted that dishonesty can be difficult to remedy.

93. The Registrant’s explanation and defence have not been accepted by the Panel. She had sought and failed to explain and defend her position with an account of events that the Panel has rejected as incredible, implausible and improbable.

94. Accordingly, in the current circumstances the Panel found that there was limited insight and no remediation demonstrated by the Registrant. The Panel was prepared to accept, to a limited extent, the earlier expressed remorse and understanding of the dishonest conduct, which at that time was admitted by the Registrant. However, the Registrant has not shown that she currently understands her actions and her dishonesty, or the impact of her actions on service users, colleagues and the wider public. The Panel concluded that given the limited insight and any remediation there is a real risk of repetition of the misconduct.

95. The Panel was mindful of the guidance on the proper approach to assessing impairment and the risk of repetition which is expressed in Grant as follows:- “Do the findings show that fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that:

a) Has the Registrant in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act in a way so as to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm;

b) Has the Registrant in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute;

c) Has the Registrant in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession?

d) has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.”

96. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had, in fact, done the mandatory annual training with Total Assist and is currently working as an ODP. Her competency is not in issue. As such it did not find there was a current risk of harm to the public and it found that the first limb of the test in Grant is not engaged.

97. However, the Panel concluded that the other three limbs of the test were engaged. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel concluded that :-

• The Registrant has in the past brought and is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute

• The Registrant has in the past breached and is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, namely trust and honesty

• The Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly and is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

98. The Panel was also mindful of the wider public interest and the guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 on the central importance of the need to safeguard public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards. It considered what a member of the public might make of the Registrant’s conduct and the effect that may have on the reputation of the profession. The Panel concluded that a member of the public would be most concerned were the fitness to practise of an ODP who had been dishonest in the circumstances alleged, not found to be currently impaired.

99. With the personal and public interest components in mind the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

15. The substantive hearing panel imposed a Suspension Order for ten months.

16. The substantive hearing panel considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, as set out below:

106. The Panel considered whether there were any aggravating and mitigating features. It found the following were aggravating factors:-

a. Although isolated, the Panel has found a real risk of repetition

b. There is a lack of insight, reflection, remorse and apology

c. The dishonesty was active, planned and premeditated.

107. The Panel found the following mitigating factors:- a. The incident was, to an extent, isolated although it persisted b. No harm was caused to any service user, and there was no risk of harm c. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had actually done the mandatory training d. No evidence of any previous regulatory history.

17. The panel concluded:

110. The Panel decided that a Conditions of Practice Order would not engage with the nature or the gravity of findings in this particular case, particularly as there is no issue about the Registrant’s competency. There is a finding of a real risk of repetition of the dishonest conduct and the Panel decided that conditions of practice could not appropriately or sufficiently manage or deal with the deliberate dishonesty found. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that conditions of practice were not appropriate, sufficient or proportionate to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case. Further, such an order would fail to properly address the public interest and would fail to maintain confidence in the profession.

111. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel was mindful of paragraph 121 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. Whilst it has found a lack of insight and remediation, the Panel considered that remediation is possible, albeit difficult. Whilst these are serious findings, it considered that the dishonesty found is not at the most serious end of the spectrum of dishonesty. The dishonesty caused no harm and no risk of harm, and it was not done for financial or personal gain. It was not a criminal act, and was an isolated act, in the sense that it related to forging one training document, training that the Registrant had, in fact, completed. The Registrant has fully engaged with these proceedings and the Panel considered that its findings can reasonably be addressed by her. She is otherwise a competent practitioner with no previous regulatory concerns.

112. The Panel considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the Sanctions Policy on Striking Off Orders. It decided that its findings are not of such gravity that nothing other than a Striking Off Order would be proportionate or appropriate. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose. It will serve to sufficiently mark the seriousness of the misconduct and make clear that it was totally unacceptable and must never be repeated.

113. The Panel next considered the appropriate period of suspension. Given the lack of insight at this stage, and the seriousness of the findings, the Panel concluded that a significant suspension for a period of ten months was necessary to mark the conduct as totally unacceptable. That will also allow the Registrant the opportunity to reflect and develop insight. The Panel found that there was nothing to suggest that she is unwilling or unable to resolve matters.

114. The Panel decided that a ten month suspension order will also serve to uphold and declare proper professional standards and was proportionate and appropriate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulator.

18. The substantive panel thereafter made the following recommendations for the reviewing panel:

115. This order will be reviewed by a panel before it expires. The future reviewing panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing the following:-

a. A reflective piece on the Panel’s decision

b. Evidence of insight and remediation

c. Any character references.

Substantive Review

HCPC Submissions

19. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Panel’s role is to review the matter on the basis of the evidence available today, and to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and if so, to decide what the appropriate sanction should be.

20. Ms Khorassani’s initial submission was that the Panel should extend the Suspension Order for a period of 12 months, but reserved her position as to whether this might alter once the Registrant had given evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence, Ms Khorassani revised her position on behalf of the HCPC, to adopt a neutral stance.

21. It was further submitted that:

(a) The Registrant had previously breached the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. She made specific reference to Standard 6.1; Standard 6.2 and Standard 9.1.

(b) The Panel has to consider both the personal and public components of impairment, taking account of the HCPC’s overarching duty to protect the public.

Registrant’s Evidence & Submissions

22. The Panel has been provided with a Reflective Statement by the Registrant which is set out in full below:

This statement will include a reflective statement regarding my failings found in my substantive hearing; including the impact that my actions had on service users, other professionals, and the public. Also including, the steps I have made to remediate following my actions and omissions, including references and character statements from employment during my time of suspension. Following on from this, I will state and provide evidence of my continued professional development throughout my time of suspension from my employment as an ODP.

These past 10 months I have had the opportunity to reflect on my actions and omissions that led to my suspension, understanding the impact that this has had on not only myself but my family and my previous colleagues too. I have been a qualified ODP for nearly 20 years, it has not only provided me with a range of skills and knowledge and life experiences both clinically and personally, but it has also allowed me to provide for my family and grow interprofessional relationships that encompass trust and clinical understanding. I now look back on my actions and realise that I was the one to jeopardise trust with these colleagues, employers, and service users. I have felt the impact of this loss and fully understand the severity of it, because of this, I never want to lose that again. I understand that mandatory training is put in place to protect not only myself, but the safety and care of my patients and that upon recognition of my actions, I know that I have put these things at risk. If I should be allowed to continue my practice as an ODP, I vow to do this with the upmost professionalism, ensuring that my clinical skills and training are completed and up to date with each agency I work with.

After my initial hearing, I wanted to schedule a meeting with JV. She is the General Manager / Lead Nurse in the Operating theatres at Yeovil Hospital. JV was the one who raised her concerns to the HCPC about me. I wanted to meet with her to apologise for my actions and the repercussions that would have occurred after my sudden departure from the department. She explained that it her duty to report me and I showed full support of this, for the safety of the patients, the reputation of the hospital and the HCPC Standards of Conduct. We talked though the situation which led to my dismissal, the hearing, and the final decision for HCPC to suspend me. I found the meeting provided me with a lot of clarity and closure. On one hand I was humbled by her forgiveness for the trouble I had brought to her door and so grateful that she said she would allow me to work at Yeovil should I be able to work as an ODP again, but on the other I was even more distraught over my actions that had led to me putting myself in this situation in the first place. I am aware of the impact of my actions, and I know that I have not only let myself down, but everyone else too. Not only do I respect my colleagues, the NHS and the HCPC Guidelines but I greatly care for the safety of my patients too and I take the responsibility of my actions very seriously. I know that my actions and omissions are not that standard that I set for myself, nor do they reflect the work that I do – which is why I would like to prove to the staff that I have let down that I will not allow these circumstances to happen again – I would also like to demonstrate my up-to-date skills and training to my patients and provide them with high-quality, evidenced based care.

Throughout my time off I have worked in different care areas that will all enhance my skill set should I be allowed to continue practice. I have worked for the care agency, Home Instead, helping to provide care and companionship to older people to enhance their quality of life and encourage independent living. In this job I was fortunate enough to meet a variety of people and provide care for them, taking them out for the day, helping them with their personal care or household needs such as shopping or making meals. I was privileged to care a lady who was terminally ill who wished to remain in her home with her husband by her side until she passed away. I found I was able to adapt to the needs of everyone with kindness and compassion, listening to their needs and building relationships with the individuals and their family members. I was able to offer words of advice for them to try to assist on making their lives slightly easier, all hints and tips I have picked up through my career as an ODP.

After this job, I took on the care of a lady with dementia to provide further respite for her daughter on the days she was not seen by a carer. I take her out twice a week and spend time with her, allowing her to spend some time out of the house. I try to find activities and day trips that are not only enjoyable and light-hearted but also stimulating for her brain. I encourage her diet to be healthy and most important I ensure her emotional wellbeing is intact by listening to her worries and advising when it is right to do so. We have become very close over the past few months.

I have also helped to deliver hot meals to those who would not normally have access to them, through a charity local to me. I stepped in to help at the last minute as she was struggling due to staff sickness, meaning I deliver the meals every lunchtime.

Although the jobs I have obtained throughout my suspension do not necessarily build upon my clinical knowledge that I gain by being an ODP, they have upheld my skills recognised by the NHS as the six C’s; care, commitment, compassion, communication, courage and competence. I have always cared very much for my patients and put their needs at the centre of each care intervention. I know that if I can practice as an ODP again, I will further carry these skills into my job whilst also demonstrating the clinical skills necessary in my role with complete training and competence – this can be shown in my completed mandatory training, basic life support and am looking to enrol on immediate life support and paediatric immediate life support courses to benefit my practice and knowledge in clinical practice once I am working within a hospital and/or agency.

I have had several months to reflect on my practice over the years and I have missed my role as an ODP so much. Working day in and day out to provide the best care I possibly can to ensure a better quality of life for our patients. This is something I would never jeopardise or lose sight of ever again.

23. The Registrant has also provided evidence of CPD courses attended:

(a) Skills for Care and Skills for Health, 15.01.24

(b) Healthier Business Group, Certificate of Completion for various courses between May 2023 and March 2024 (22 courses, 41 CPD points)

(c) Recruitment Assessment Process (Ageing Process, Safe Client Safe Care Professional and Building Relationships (August 2023)

(d) Catheter Care 31.08.23

(e) Emergency First Aid at Work 31.08.23

(f) Medications Awareness & Administration 31.08.23

(g) Moving and Handling 01.09.23.

24. The Panel has also seen testimonial evidence, submitted on the Registrant’s behalf, from:

(1) Ms Caroline Woodhead, Office Manager of Home Instead Care dated 14 March 2024,

(2) Rebecca Lambourne-Grinter, undated

(3) Penelope Mitchell, Manager Yeovil Community Meals Service dated 25 March 2024.

25. The Panel heard evidence from the Registrant. A summary of her evidence is set out below:

(a) She was remorseful and stated that she would never allow a repetition of what had happened previously. She was remorseful as to the people she had affected and the individuals who had lost faith and trust in her.

(b) She was mortified that her colleagues, patients and the profession would regard her as being dishonest. She said: “People have to maintain standards. I get that…Integrity in your work – it’s what you do, acting professionally.” She had not disclosed her suspension to her subsequent employer as she was “too ashamed.”

(c) She reflected that part of doing your best for patients, in being good at your job, is being honest. You have to work as a team and the public expect that this would include “all pulling together and being truthful.” She added: “Honesty is important in all aspects – what have you got if not honest?”

(d) She loved her job as an ODP and being suspended caused “tremendous heartbreak.”

(e) The last 11 months have been very difficult, but she understands why the HCPC reached the decision it did. She misses her job and wants to return to work as an ODP, having qualified in 2005.

(f) Being suspended gave her a period of “downtime” and the opportunity to reflect. Thereafter, she had to pull herself together and find a job.

(g) The first thing she did was to go and speak with JV who reported her in the first place, as set out in her reflective piece. She has since been in contact by email and appeared confident that she would be able to return to work at Yeovil as an ODP, once the Suspension Order had expired.

(h) In private

(i) She concluded: “I own my mistakes and put my hand up…” She acknowledged that the reputation of the profession had been damaged by her actions, saying, “the impact was not acceptable. Sorry.”

(j) She has a support system in place for the future – this is mainly from within her family and made specific reference to her daughter.

(k) She has maintained her continuous professional development (CPD), via her agency, and is committed to undertaking both Immediate Life Support (ILS) and Paediatric Immediate Life Support (PILS) courses.

Legal Advice

26. In undertaking this review today, the Panel has reminded itself of the following matters, having accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor:

(a) A proper exercise of the review process must involve a comprehensive reconsideration of the initial order, in the light of all circumstances, which are before the Panel today. However, it is not the Panel’s role to go behind the previous Panel’s findings.

(b) The Panel’s role is to exercise its own judgement in determining whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practice remains impaired, and if so, what the least restrictive sanction is to meet the level of public protection which the Panel identifies as being required.

(c) The Panel in its deliberations applied the principle of proportionality and balanced the rights of the Registrant with the rights of the public.

(d) The Panel has, under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the power to:

(i) With effect from the date on which the order would, but for this provision, have expired, extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect,

(ii) With effect from the expiry of the order, make an order which it could have made at the time it made the order being reviewed,

(iii) With effect from the expiry of a suspension order, make a conditions of practice order with which the practitioner must comply if she resumes the practice of her registered profession after the end of her period of suspension.

(e) The Panel had regard to the HCPC Practice Note, review of Article 30 sanctions Orders and the HCPC Sanctions Policy document.

27. The Panel has comprehensively reviewed all the documentary and oral evidence before it, in particular relating to the period since the imposition of the original Suspension Order.

Decision

Fitness to Practise

28. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The Panel considered the original panel’s findings, and the steps taken by the Registrant since, to address the specific failings identified.

29. The Panel first considered the personal component:

(a) The Panel noted that the Registrant had engaged with the HCPC and attended the hearing today. She gave evidence and was extremely candid, being very frank in talking about what had happened to her both in relation to the previous panel’s findings and what had happened since.

(b) The Panel acknowledged that there had been a finding of dishonesty, and that dishonesty can be difficult to remediate. However, the previous panel had concluded that the dishonesty was at the lower end of the scale.

(c) The Registrant had taken steps to remediate her dishonesty. The Panel was particularly impressed that the Registrant had returned to speak with JV who had originally reported her, and apologised for her conduct. This took courage and is evidence of insight and remediation.

(d) The Registrant expressed remorse and demonstrated further insight. The Panel concluded that she now understands the importance of honesty in the workplace. It is clear that her focus is on patient care, and there are no concerns about her ability to undertake her role as an ODP.

(e) She has accepted responsibility for her actions. The Panel’s view was that she is horrified at the way she behaved and that there is an extremely low risk of repetition in the future.

30. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is no longer impaired having regard to the personal component of impairment.

31. The Panel also considered the public component of impairment. The Panel reminded itself that the sanctions are imposed to protect the public and not to punish the individual practitioner. The Registrant was suspended for a 10 month period.

32. The Panel’s view was that a wellinformed member of the public, having been appraised of the steps taken by the Registrant since the Suspension Order, would not be shocked if there was no finding of current impairment. Rather, the view would be taken that the Registrant was a caring and dedicated professional, who had made a mistake and had subsequently taken steps to rectify her error.

33. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is no longer impaired having regard to the public component of impairment.

34. Having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired, having regard to either the personal or public components, the Panel makes no further order.

35. The Suspension Order will therefore expire on 10 May 2024.

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to revoke the Suspension Order of the registration of Mrs Sarah McCamley from the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mrs Sarah L Mccamley

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
15/04/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Review Hearing	No further action
12/06/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended
22/11/2022	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard