Mr Glen J Winter-Nolan

Background:

1. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Occupational Therapist (OT) who was employed by Kent County Council (KCC) on a KR9 grade.

2. During the course of his employment with KCC he applied to become an Experienced Practitioner (KR10). KCC uses a Social Care Capability Framework, (“SCCF”) process to support career progression for registered practitioners, including OTs. In addition to producing “a portfolio of evidence which demonstrates the individual’s competency for the requirement at each stage of the framework”, such portfolio containing in particular “a central document completed by the applicant as well as other supporting documentation such as critical reflections and feedback from direct observations”.

3. The “final step” in the process is the submission of the portfolio to an assessment panel who decide whether the evidence meets the criteria to support career progression. If the assessment panel is so satisfied, there is automatic progression to the next level, and this also means progression in pay grade. In the Registrant’s case this would therefore have been from KR9 to KR10.

4. The work required for the SCCF process should be the candidate’s own. The candidate’s critical reflection on their work, presented as part of their SCCF portfolio, needed to be personal to them. The process of critical reflection (in this context) required the candidate to think about their own practice and ideas and then examine and question their own thinking. If a candidate used another practitioner’s wording as their own reflections on their own work, then it would not have been their own work. Further, if they had obtained progression from the KR9 grade to the KR10 grade based on work which was not their own, that would not have been fair. If that had happened, such a career progression would have been obtained by misleading the panel. However, the Registrant’s SCCF was never presented to a final panel.

5. When the Registrant’s SCCF was reviewed by an operational manager, Colleague 5 (MM), she noticed similarities with the SCCF submitted by Colleague 2 (FC), who had already completed the SCCF process successfully. Following an investigation conducted by KCC the matter was referred to the HCPC on 7 November 2019. An Investigating Committee (IC) decided that there is a case to answer in relation to an allegation of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

6. At the outset of the substantive hearing held between 06 and 24 November 2023, the Registrant made admissions to particulars 1 and 2 and admitted particular 4a in part. He denied particular 3 and 4b and 4c.

7. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant acted dishonestly by submitting an e-portfolio which was plagiarised. Further, it was submitted that the Registrant acted in a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of an HCPC registered OT. In doing so, it was submitted that he breached standards 9.1 and 9.2 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (January 2016) and 2 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Occupational Therapists (March 2013).

8. The cases against the Registrant and a second Registrant were joined and heard together.

9. The panel at the substantive hearing found the following facts proved - 1, 2a-f, 3 (in respect of 1 and 2b-f), 4a (in respect of 1 and 2bf), 4b (in respect of 1 and 2b-f), 4c (in respect of 1 and 2b-f), that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct, and a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months was imposed.

10. This is a review of that Order which is due to expire on 20 September 2024.

Submissions:

11. Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC gave the Panel background information on the facts which led to the allegation and the findings of the substantive hearing panel. She referred the Panel specifically to the aggravating and mitigating features identified at paragraphs 128 and 129 of the previous decision and the panel’s recommendations at paragraph 140 as to what the Registrant could do to assist this Panel.

12. Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of impairment and left this as a matter of judgment for the Panel.

13. The Registrant gave evidence on affirmation during which he expressed an apology for his actions which he acknowledged were dishonest and misleading and he stated that he had tried to cut corners to get ahead. He stated that going through the regulatory process had been a learning curve for him, he has learned to “open up” and talk about things more openly now, accept responsibility for his wrongdoing and reflect on his actions.

14. The Registrant described the depth of his insight at the time of the substantive hearing as being ‘superficial’. Since engaging in Talking Therapies the Registrant stated that he has much clearer insight and recognises that he will need to work much harder in the future to gain trust amongst colleagues and service users.

15. The Registrant described how he had been unable to work since the Suspension Order was imposed, he had sought employment in non-registered roles and found that he had to justify why he was unable to work as an OT. The Registrant initially found this difficult, but with time and therapy he has been able to work on his reflections and has undertaken CPD to demonstrate that he can achieve things using his own work. The Registrant described utilising the time he has had available to him to become a better practitioner and be more reflective, which in turn will ensure his actions are not repeated.

16. The Registrant referred to his references and stated that they were intended to demonstrate that he was working to a high standard within the profession before his suspension.

17. The Registrant advised that he had been dismissed form his employment following a finding of gross misconduct as it was part of his contract to maintain his registration with the HCPC. He recognises that he only has himself to blame that he was unable to remain on the register.

18. The Registrant gave the Panel an explanation of the impact of his actions upon his colleagues, the wider profession, the regulator and service users. He stated that his actions had negatively impacted upon the reputation of the profession, and he sought to work hard to correct this and promote the profession.

19. During cross examination, the Registrant gave the Panel an explanation of what he has done during the period of suspension to keep his knowledge and skills up to date. He stated that while he has been financially limited, he has undertaken the courses most relevant to his professional practice. In addition, the Registrant stated he had been caring for his parents and some of their friends by taking them to appointments, collecting prescriptions and getting their shopping in. This is similar to the role he had undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic when he worked as an NHS responder on a voluntary basis.

20. When asked about his insight the Registrant stated that he had been arrogant and dismissive of his actions, placing blame on others. He stated that the experience of going through the substantive hearing and support received had given him the opportunity to reflect and consider his actions. He described gaining a greater understanding of his own culpability for his actions and would like to apologise to those affected.

21. The Registrant was able to describe how he would respond to questions around his wrongdoing and recognises that he will need to prove himself day to day in maintaining professional standards.

22. The Registrant was further able to explain the potential consequences of plagiarism in a professional environment and stated that he would be particularly careful to ensure that each assessment he was to undertake was independent and accurate, and that anything quoted within was properly referenced. He was able to identify the potentially negative outcomes which might occur as a result of taking shortcuts.

23. The Registrant confirmed that he did not wish to repeat the misconduct and would do everything he could to ensure this did not happen again.

24. The Registrant expressed that he was keen to return to the profession and wanted to be able to make a difference to service users. He described taking a holistic approach when dealing with service users to ensure that he was able to refer on to other services where necessary.

25. The Registrant expressed a wish to be open and honest going forward and would not keep anything back if asked about his misconduct and would be happy to be held to account in maintaining professional standards.

Legal Assessor’s Advice:

26. The Legal Assessor advised that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ as well as the ‘Sanctions Policy’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to:
- extend the period for which the order has effect;
- make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made.

27. 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 practice is impaired. The purpose of the review is to consider:-

• Whether 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.

28. The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account include:

• the steps which the registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
• the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
• the steps which the registrant has taken to maintain or improve his professional knowledge and skills; and
• whether any other fitness to practice issues have arisen.

29. The reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed”. Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.

30. 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.

31. The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public and the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish registrants for their past acts and omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. It does this by:

• protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public;
• promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions it regulates;
• promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.

32. In determining fitness to practise allegations, panels must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the registrant concerned; and the ‘public’ component: those critically important public policy issues.

Decision on Impairment:

33. In reaching its decision today, the Panel considered all the information before it, including the HCPC bundle of 39 pages, the Registrant’s bundle of 42 pages and the oral evidence of the Registrant, along with oral submissions.

34. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The Panel was aware that the persuasive burden is upon the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel had regard to the decision of the substantive panel. However, it comprehensively reviewed the matter and exercised its own judgment in reaching its decision.

35. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

36. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired looking at both the personal component and the public component, taking account of the evidence from the Registrant. The Panel acknowledged the comments of the panel who heard the substantive matter in their decision and heard at length from the Registrant.

37. The Panel was impressed by the in-depth insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant through his detailed evidence in which he had taken accountability for his actions and expressed remorse. The Panel considered the Registrant to be genuine, candid and honest in his reflections and he responded well to some difficult questions.

38. The Panel is satisfied from hearing from the Registrant that he has remediated, demonstrated full insight and has learned from what has happened. The Registrant recognised the impact of his actions on his colleagues, the wider profession and service users, and was also able to describe the risks associated with plagiarism.

39. The Registrant has accepted that his behaviour fell below the standard expected of a professional and has taken action to address that failure. The Panel is satisfied that there is no longer a risk of repetition.

40. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is no longer impaired on the personal component and concluded that the Registrant had discharged the persuasive burden to demonstrate that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...” (Abrahaem v GMC).

41. The Panel came to this conclusion because the Registrant has taken all steps possible to address the requirements of the previous panel and has demonstrated full insight, engaged in CPD, and has provided character references. There has been no suggestion that the Registrant is not a good practitioner / manager.

42. The Panel went on to consider the public component. As the Panel has concluded that there is no risk of repetition it cannot be said that there is a risk of harm.

43. In considering the requirement to maintain professional standards and public confidence in the profession, the Panel is satisfied that the current Suspension Order is sufficient to mark the misconduct, to satisfy public confidence in the profession and its regulator. Accordingly, the Panel is not able to find impairment on the public component.

44. As the Panel has found that the Registrant is no longer impaired on either the personal or public component, the current Suspension Order shall be allowed to lapse upon expiry, on 20 September 2024.

The Suspension Order shall be allowed to lapse upon expiry, on 20 September 2024.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Glen J Winter-Nolan