Sarah E Pritchard

Background

1. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist. She has been employed by North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) since 8 March 2021 as a Specialist Mental Health Practitioner within the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.

2. Prior to her employment by the Trust, the Registrant was employed by Keele University (‘the University’) as a Mental Health Adviser and was managed by Service User A. On the last day of her employment with the University, the Registrant submitted a grievance against Service User A.

3. The grievance was investigated by the University. Prior to the outcome being announced, on 22 April 2021, the Registrant accessed and read the confidential medical records of Service User A.

4. On 27 April 2021, the University determined the grievance lodged by the Registrant against Service User A, upholding some of the complaints while dismissing others.

5. On 29 June 2021, Service User A referred concerns about the Registrant’s work at the University to the HCPC. The Regulator did not proceed with those concerns.

6. Service User A made a Subject Access Request to the Trust on 13 November 2021 for information as to who had accessed his medical records. This information was provided to him on 19 November 2021. On 26 November 2021, Service User A complained to the Trust that the Registrant had accessed his private information without justification. An investigation was undertaken by the Trust’s information governance team, which was satisfied there was no evidence that the Registrant had shared Service User A’s documentation with anyone else. The report in respect of the data breach was dated 24 January 2022.

7. Service User A also notified the HCPC of the situation in respect of the Registrant accessing his personal data on 26 November 2021.

8. The Trust commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Registrant on 16 December 2021 in respect of the breach of patient confidentiality. When interviewed on 12 January 2022, the Registrant admitted accessing the information and denied sharing it with anyone or using the information in any way. She was issued with a final written warning by the Trust on 8 February 2022, this warning to remain on her record of employment for two years.

9. The HCPC investigated the data breach concern referred by Service User A and, on 18 July 2023, an Investigating Committee Panel determined that the Registrant did have a case to answer in respect of the allegations set out above.

10. The HCPC and the Registrant thereafter explored determining the matter by consent, ultimately agreeing that the matter was suitable for disposal by way of a Consent Order and suspension from the Register for a period of six months. The Registrant signified her agreement to such a disposal by consent on 11 January 2024.

The substantive hearing on 9 May 2024

11. The substantive hearing panel agreed with the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant to dispose of the matter by consent.

12. The panel was satisfied that the HCPC’s case was well founded in light of the information and admissions before it. The panel decided that accessing personal information about Service User A without clear clinical justification amounted to misconduct, which was admitted and accepted by the Registrant. The panel also noted that the Registrant accepted that her conduct was dishonest, and that she had provided a reflective piece addressing this element of the allegation, which was initially not admitted by her.

13. The panel noted that the Registrant had demonstrated insight and remorse and had undertaken steps towards remediation, and that her misconduct was unlikely to repeated. However, the panel considered that her misconduct in accessing the personal information about Service User A without clinical justification was so serious as to require a finding of current impairment both to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator.

14. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the disposal of the matter by consent would:

a. protect the public; and

b. not undermine public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process; and

c. the matter was not so serious as to make a public substantive hearing necessary.

15. By way of sanction, the panel accepted the submissions of both parties that a Suspension Order for a period of six months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, which the panel therefore imposed by approving the proposed Consent Order.

Today’s hearing

16. The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle which included:

• the decision of the panel at the substantive hearing;

• information about the Registrant’s employment by the Trust as a Band 4 Support Time Recovery (‘STR’) Worker at South Stoke CAMHS during the period of suspension, for which registration with the HCPC was not required;

• the Registrant’s reflective statement on her 6-month period of suspension;

• a supportive letter dated 4 November 2024 from DB, the Registrant’s line manager and supervisor at South Stoke CAMHS. In that letter DB spoke highly of the Registrant and stated that she has no concerns regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practise;

• an undated letter from MB of South Stokes CAMHS, who stated that she has provided monthly clinical supervision to the Registrant since her suspension. MB stated that she has found the Registrant reflective about her actions and dedicated to providing high quality care within her new role, and ensures that she is not working outside this role and is working under supervision of her team;

• a character reference from Dr JL, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, who stated that that she has worked alongside the Registrant on numerous occasions during the last six months and has no concerns with regard to the Registrant’s ability to deliver clinical services with integrity and professionalism;

• a screenshot of training courses completed by the Registrant during her period of suspension.

Submissions

17. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Sampson took a neutral position as to whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

18. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Shadenbury submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

Decision

19. 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.

20. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC, where it was stated that in practical terms there is a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed her impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

21. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct, having regard to both the personal and public components of impairment.

22. The Panel noted that the substantive hearing panel found the Registrant had demonstrated remorse, insight, and remediation. In the Panel’s judgement today, those findings were reinforced by the Registrant’s conduct at work during the period of her suspension, as evidenced by her line manager and supervisor. DB, in her letter dated 4 November 2024, stated that “[the Registrant] has illustrated remorse and insight into her actions and has frequently reflected upon any repercussions for the patient whose records were accessed. [The Registrant] has never tried to minimise or shy away from her actions and takes sole responsibility”.

23. The Panel was impressed by the Registrant’s reflective piece, the letters from her supervisors at South Stoke CAMHS, and the character reference from Dr JL, each of which confirmed the Registrant’s professionalism and integrity in her practice as a Band 4 STR Worker during the period of her suspension.

24. The Panel noted that the panel at the substantive hearing was satisfied that there was no likelihood the Registrant would repeat her misconduct. The sanction of a six months’ Suspension Order was imposed principally to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator by making it clear to the profession and the public that it was serious misconduct and unacceptable to access a service user’s confidential records without clinical justification. In the Panel’s judgement, the Suspension Order for a period of six months was appropriate and proportionate. The Panel was satisfied by the independent assessments of DB, MB, and Dr JL, who have worked with the Registrant during her period of suspension, and by the Registrant’s own reflective statement that she has fully addressed all the outstanding concerns and that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired. Accordingly, no further sanction is required on the expiry of the current Suspension Order on 6 December 2024.

The Panel decided to let the Suspension Order lapse on its expiry on 06 December 2024.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Sarah E Pritchard