
Simon Trafford
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
No information currently available
Finding
Background
1.The Registrant is a Registered Paramedic and has been working for the ambulance service for the past 25 years in various roles. He spent much of his career as an Ambulance Technician and subsequently registered as a Paramedic on 26 August 2017.
2.He worked for South East Ambulance Service Trust (the Trust) and another private paramedic service, (Company A) at the relevant time.
3.It was alleged that the Registrant failed to maintain professional boundaries with those who he worked with.
4.Colleague Y was a student paramedic who completed work experience with the Trust and Company A. She was young and away from home for the first time.
5.The Registrant exchanged Facebook Messenger communications with her. While many were friendly exchanges that covered a variety of topics, the Registrant made comments that breach professional boundaries, commenting on her physical experience and potential relationships. He was reminded by her that she was his professional colleague and did not want to communicate in this way. He sent her photos of himself in bed, offered to pay for her shopping, and made her feel uncomfortable.
6.A second complainant, Colleague Y, was an Emergency Care Support Worker.
7.The Registrant was in contact with her via Facebook Messenger from October 2019. He commented that she was young, healthy and good looking, and said she looked older than she was and persistently invited her to go with him for coffee, albeit she refused.
8.Colleague Z was an Emergency Care Support Worker Apprentice. The Registrant was in contact with her from August 2019. It is alleged that on 27 September 2019, the Registrant saw Colleague Z with her family. She said that she and her family were videoed. She reports that the Registrant thereafter said she was “useless”, and “had a boyfriend”, or words to that effect, to which she replied he was too old for her.
9.It is alleged the Registrant’s conduct was sexual and/or sexually motivated.
10.A previous fitness of practise finding following a HCPTS hearing on 4-7 November 2019, found that the Registrant had failed to maintain professional boundaries with a service user, texting sexual messages and giving her £40 in 2017/2018, a year after he had reason to contact her professionally.
11.At the outset of the substantive hearing, the Registrant made admissions to some of the factual particulars in the Allegation but denied that his behaviour had been unprofessional or transgressed professional boundaries.
12.The panel found all the particulars of the Allegation proved apart from 2c) and 4 in relation to 2.
13.The panel found that the proven particulars constituted misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The panel stated that “the Registrant’s reckless behaviour had been persistent, caused harm and involved a sexual element in some instances”. The panel noted that any insight on the part of the Registrant was very late in coming, despite the fact that he had in excess of 3 years to reflect on his behaviour since the initial referral to the HCPC.
14.By way of sanction, the panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 18 months. In so doing, the panel stated as follows:
“The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour was serious, as any sexual wrongdoing must be categorised. It took into account the context of the offending and the steps that the Registrant has taken to address his behaviour in terms of being far more careful about his social media use. However, it had regard to the fact that the Registrant has not evidenced any further remediation in looking at how his interactions came about, (even if he has indicated that he is willing to undertake remediation). His failure to appreciate how his interactions cross professional boundaries, and his impact on workplace colleagues who are his junior, even after completing a three-day professional boundary course is a matter of some disquiet."
15. The panel made the following observations with regard to a future review of the Suspension Order:
“the Registrant may wish to consider what evidence he produces. Evidence that the Registrant has used this additional time to reflect on and address the shortcomings identified in this hearing is likely to be of the utmost importance”.
Today’s hearing
16. The Panel was provided by the Registrant with the following documents:
• A personal statement by the Registrant dated August 2024, setting out a summary of his personal background and the history of his professional practice
• A supportive testimonial (undated) from the Director of Event First Aid, stating that the Registrant was a great asset to his team, providing technical expertise and excellent professionalism
• A testimonial from Gary Campbell of Prime UK (undated), stating that he had been the Registrant’s manager for the past 4 years, that he knew all about the HCPC case and commented on the Registrant’s professional and high standards in all aspects of his work in Clinical Shifts out on the road as well as Clinical Lead duties
• A testimonial from Tim Parsons, Chaplain to Zulu Safety Ltd. Mr Parsons stated that he had known the Registrant for a number of years personally and professionally and stated that the Registrant is a “very compassionate, caring and loving person who has exceptional medical experience and skills”.
17. The Registrant explained to the Panel that, because of computer problems, he had been unable to send the HCPC a reflective statement which he had prepared for today’s hearing. The Panel gave the Registrant the option of applying for an adjournment (which Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC indicated that he would oppose) for further time to provide the Panel with any additional documents or giving oral evidence to the Panel as to the content of those documents. The Registrant opted to give oral evidence rather than apply for an adjournment.
18. In his oral evidence to the Panel, the Registrant stated that during the last 12 months he had worked as an Emergency Medical Technician for four medical providers, involving clinical shifts and frequent interaction with the public and patients. He had also undertaken teaching in First Aid and Advanced First Aid. He stated that there had been no complaints about his practice during this period and that he had received many compliments about his work.
19. The Registrant stated that between the substantive hearing and about October 2023 he had undertaken a course of five webinars provided by the College of Paramedics, including two specifically related to the need to maintain professional boundaries. He described the content of the webinars in some detail. From these webinars, he had learned the difference between “banter” and “bullying” and how the imbalance of power between colleagues could result in banter taking on the character of bullying. He said that he was also now aware of the vulnerabilities of others, particularly young people who had recently started work within the profession, and the need to communicate with them in such a way as to avoid making them feel uncomfortable or upset. He said that he now restricted his communications to work-related matters and avoided communications of a personal nature. He stated that he no longer engaged in communications via social media except with friends and family.
20. The Panel asked the Registrant a number of questions. When asked how he now regarded his communication style as found proved at the substantive hearing, the Registrant stated that his behaviour had been “awful” and that he was “disgusted” with himself.
21. When asked whether he now accepted the findings of the substantive panel that his behaviour had been “sexual”, the Registrant stated that he understood how his behaviour could be perceived in that light.
Submissions
22. On behalf of the HCPC Mr Smith submitted that the Registrant had not done enough to demonstrate that he had remediated his practice or gained sufficient insight so as to avoid transgressing professional boundaries in the future and that, as a consequence, his fitness to practise remained impaired. Mr Smith submitted that a further Suspension Order should be imposed upon the expiry of the current Order.
23. The Panel understood from the Registrant’s evidence that he considered that he had done everything possible to remediate his practice and that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired.
The Panel’s decision
24. 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.
25. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the allegations found proved at the substantive hearing.
26. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 [Admin] where it was stated that in practical terms 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 findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.
27. The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s personal statement, his oral evidence and the supportive testimonials on his behalf.
28. The Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight since the substantive hearing but that that there was insufficient evidence that his practice was yet fully remediated. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not undertaken any courses on maintaining professional boundaries or other forms of remediation since about October 2023. The Panel considered that there was further work to be done by the Registrant in that regard.
29. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.
30. In deciding what further sanction to impose on the expiry of the current Suspension Order, the Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
31. The Panel considered the options by way of disposal in ascending order of seriousness.
32. Taking no further action would not be appropriate given the outstanding concerns about the Registrant’s practice.
33. A Caution Order would not be appropriate because such an order would not provide any level of protection to the public, including professional colleagues.
34. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months would be the appropriate, proportionate and least restrictive sanction and would give the Registrant sufficient opportunity to demonstrate that his practice was fully compliant with professional boundaries.
35. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate given the progress that the Registrant had made towards a safe return to practice.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed annotate the Register entry for Mr Simon Trafford with a Conditions of Practice Order for 12 months. The Order imposed today will apply from 20 September 2024. From the date that this Order takes effect you, Mr Simon Trafford, must comply with the following conditions of practice:
Whilst employed as a Registered Paramedic:
1. You must not undertake any role in which you are a nominated mentor to any junior member of staff.
2. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other statutory authority and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of the supervisor being identified. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.
3. You must meet with your supervisor on a 3 monthly basis to consider any conduct issues in relation to your practice that might arise and, in particular, your adherence to professional boundaries.
4. You must provide to your workplace supervisor every 3 months a report concerning your compliance with the maintenance of professional boundaries within the workplace.
5. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress and any concerns relating to your conduct.
6. Within 2 months of this Order coming into effect, you must complete an accredited CPD course on maintaining professional boundaries.
7. Within 1 month of completing the accredited course on maintaining professional boundaries, you must complete and submit to the HCPC a reflective statement which demonstrates your understanding of:
a) the meaning of, and your application of, the need to maintain professional boundaries within the workplace;
b) the negative impact of not maintaining professional boundaries on your own professional reputation, the reputation of the profession and on colleagues and service users; and
c) the inappropriate nature of “banter” within the workplace
8. Not later than 14 days prior to the next review hearing you must submit to the HCPC:
a) statement from your workplace supervisor concerning your observance of professional boundaries within the workplace; and
b) a further reflective statement as to how you have applied your learning and understanding about professional boundaries in your practice as a Paramedic.
9. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment.
10. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you become subject to any further disciplinary proceedings.
11. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
A. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
B. Any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
C. Any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
Notes
The Order imposed today will apply from 20 September 2024.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 20 September 2025.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Simon Trafford
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
23/08/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
31/07/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |