HCPTS |

Profession: Physiotherapist

Registration Number: PH107579

Hearing Type: Voluntary Removal Agreement

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 20/03/2024 End: 17:00 20/03/2024

Location: via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Voluntary Removal agreed

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 Physiotherapist (PH107579) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence. In that:

1. Between June 2017 and January 2019 you did not maintain accurate and complete records for the Service Users set out in Schedule A, namely;

a. You did not document patient identification information;

b. You did not record all information gathered during assessments with the Service Users set out in Schedule A;

c. The Service Users set out in Schedule A records were not completed to the required standard.

1. Between June 2017 and January 2019, you did not follow up on treatment plans for the Service Users set out in Schedule A, in a timely manner.

2. Your actions at particulars 1 and 2 above constitute lack of competence and/or misconduct.

3. By reason of your lack of competence and/or misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A
[Service Users 1-15]

Finding

Preliminary Matters:

Service / Proceeding in Absence

1. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing dated 20 February 2024 had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, giving adequate notice of the date, time and venue (virtual) of the hearing, and its purpose. Therefore, there had been good service of the notice of hearing.

2. Mr Barnfield applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor gave advice, which the Panel accepted.

3. The Panel bore in mind the Registrant’s representative’s email dated 22 November 2023, which stated that the Registrant would not be attending the hearing of the application for his voluntary removal from the Register, and that he would also not be represented at the hearing. The Panel considered that in those circumstances an adjournment would serve no purpose and that it was fair to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Privacy Application

4. Mr Barnfield applied for those parts of the hearing that may be concerned with the Registrant’s health to be conducted in private. Having received further advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel granted that application and directed that any part of the hearing concerned with the Registrant’s health should be conducted in private.

Background:

5. The Registrant was employed as a Band 6 Physiotherapist at Northwick Park Hospital by London North-West University Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) between June 2017 and January 2019.

6. In December 2018 and following a concern raised by one of the Registrant’s patients, an audit of patient records was carried out for Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists within the team. As a result, concerns arose regarding the Registrant’s record management and his treatment plans for patients. In particular, the Trust was concerned that the Registrant had not complied with the required standards of record management and appropriate treatment plans had not been developed by the Registrant to ensure that pathways for certain patients were in place and clearly documented in accordance with the requirements of the Trust.

7. The Trust conducted an internal investigation and on 22 January 2020, the Trust referred its concerns to the HCPC.

8. On 27 October 2020, a panel of the HCPC’s Investigating Committee referred the following allegation for a hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee (“CCC”):

‘As a registered Physiotherapist (PH107579) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence. In that:

1. Between June 2017 and January 2019 you did not maintain accurate and complete records for the Service Users set out in Schedule A, namely;

a. You did not document patient identification information;

b. You did not record all information gathered during assessments with the Service Users set out in Schedule A;

c. The Service Users set out in Schedule A records were not completed to the required standard.

2. Between June 2017 and January 2019, you did not follow up on treatment plans for the Service Users set out in Schedule A, in a timely manner.

3. Your actions at particulars 1 and 2 above constitute lack of competence and/or misconduct.

4. By reason of your lack of competence and/or misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A

[Service Users 1-15]’

9. On 9 December 2022 the Registrant informed the HCPC, by his representative, that he admitted all of the allegations referred to the CCC, including the impairment of his fitness to practise. His representative indicated that the Registrant was no longer practising as a Physiotherapist and wished to explore the possibility of a voluntary removal agreement (“VRA”) in order to secure his voluntary removal from the Register.

10. The HCPC decided that a VRA would be appropriate in the circumstances. Signed admissions were made by the Registrant in a Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma (‘the Request Pro-Forma’) in which the Registrant admitted the substance of the allegation against him and his fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of his misconduct and/or lack of competence. On 9 February 2024, the parties entered into a written VRA, which was signed by the Registrant and on behalf of the HCPC.

Decision on Application:

11. Mr Barnfield relied on a written Skeleton Argument, supplemented by oral submissions. There were no written submissions from the Registrant. However, his position, as appeared from the VRA itself and other correspondence before the Panel, was that he supported the application.

12. The Panel has directed itself in accordance with the advice given by the Legal Assessor.

13. The HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public: Article 3(4) of the Health Professions Order 2001 as amended. The HCPTS’s Practice Note, ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ (March 2018) states that as the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public, a panel should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that:

• the appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and

• doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

14. The Practice Note also explains that where the HCPC is satisfied that permitting a registrant to resign from the Register would adequately protect the public, the HCPC may enter into a VRA allowing the registrant to do so. The VRA is on similar terms to those which would apply if a registrant had been struck off.

15. In making its decision, the Panel has borne in mind that the Registrant has admitted the substance of the allegation and his fitness to practise to be impaired by reason of his misconduct and/or lack of competence.

16. The Panel has also considered the signed VRA. The terms of the VRA and in particular the ‘Operative Date’ of the agreement were varied by three emails dated 19 March 2024, consisting of one email from the Registrant to the HCPTS, a second email from him to Capsticks LLP, solicitors (‘Capsticks’) for the HCPC and an email from the Registrant to Capsticks. The Panel was satisfied that the signed VRA as so varied had the legal effect of a VRA, as set out in the Practice Note and summarised above.

17. The VRA proposes removal of the Registrant’s name from the register. If the Panel were to give effect to the VRA, the Registrant would no longer be able to practise in a role that requires his registration. Further, the terms and effect of the VRA are that were the Registrant to seek to be readmitted to the Register, in considering any such application the HCPC may act as if the Registrant had been struck off the register as a result of the allegation.

18. As a result, members of the public would be adequately protected by the VRA.

19. The allegation relates to failures to maintain accurate and complete records for specified patients, and not following up on treatment plans in a timely manner. This is a serious allegation. However, on the spectrum of seriousness, the allegation is not so grave as to require a public hearing.

20. Disposal of the case by giving effect to the VRA removes the necessity of witnesses attending a final hearing, and also saves time and expense. The Panel has concluded that in the circumstances of this case, giving effect to the VRA would protect the public and the wider public interest.

21. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant has also been properly advised by the HCPC, pursuant to the requirement in the Practice Note, that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to approval of the VRA by a panel of the CCC.

22. Therefore, the Panel has decided to grant the application and give effect to the VRA. In doing so, it gives permission to the HCPC to withdraw the allegation and gives a direction for removal of the Registrant’s name from the Register as set out below.

Order

The Panel grants the application for voluntary removal and directs the Registrar to remove the name of Mr Benedict Palmer from the Register with immediate effect.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Benedict Palmer

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
20/03/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Voluntary Removal Agreement	Voluntary Removal agreed