Wesley Weathers
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 Paramedic (PA41809) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:
1) On 30 November 2018, you did not provide adequate treatment to Patient A in that you did not:
a) undertake an appropriate level of assessment of Patient A’s condition when attending as lead clinician, or ensure an appropriate assessment was conducted;
b) appropriately manage the potential for a C-Spine injury in that you:
i. did not ensure the transfer of Patient A onto his back was properly planned and/or executed;
ii. [no evidence offered]
iii. applied a head tilt chin lift
c) recognise the reasons for and/or react appropriately to Patient A’s:
i. fall in response
ii. snoring
d) ensure that Patient A was conveyed to a Major Trauma Centre
e) accompany Patient A to hospital
2) The matters set out in allegation 1 constitute misconduct
3) By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel finds there has been good service of the notice of today’s hearing dated 17 September 2024 and sent to the Registrant’s registered address by email. The Registrant was in attendance with his representative Mr James of Counsel and did not raise any issues in respect of service.
Background
2. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic with the HCPC. At the relevant time he was employed by the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust), having started on 5 September 2016. At the time of the matters alleged, he was a Band 6 Paramedic, having been conditionally progressed to that rank on 18 January 2018.
3. At 22:50 on 30 November 2018, the Trust was requested to attend an address in Belgrave, Leicester.
4. At 22:59 a double crewed ambulance (DCA1) arrived on the scene of the incident. The crew consisted of two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs), JM and DF.
5. At the scene they found Patient A, a 76-year-old male, lying on his front on the floor at the bottom of a flight of stairs. The family of the male said that they had heard him fall and that he had fallen down the stairs.
6. As a result, the EMTs made a red request for paramedic backup at 23:11.
7. A red request is the highest priority request. This is where the patient is considered time critical or requires time critical hospital intervention and requires immediate additional resources responding as an emergency using blue lights and sirens.
8. At 23:15 the Registrant arrived as the paramedic on a Fast Response Vehicle (FRV). He had with him a trainee.
9. At 23:22 a further double-crewed ambulance (DCA2) arrived on scene. That crew consisted of an EMT, RL, and an Emergency Care Assistant, KT.
10. As the only paramedic on scene, the Registrant assumed the role of lead clinician.
11. At the scene Patient A was rolled onto his back and placed into an orthopaedic stretcher (scoop). He was then transferred to the DCA2 vehicle. During this time, his responsiveness dropped and he apparently began to snore.
12. At 00:03 DCA2 left the scene with Patient A, en route to Leicester Royal Infirmary (LRI). LRI is not a Major Trauma Centre (MTC). The Registrant did not go with them.
13. At 00:19 DCA2 arrived at the hospital with the patient. Once at hospital, Patient A was taken for a CT scan and identified as being critically unwell. He had multiple injuries, including unstable cervical fractures, an unstable lumbar fracture, a bilateral tension pneumothorax and hypoxic brain injury.
14. That same day RL raised concerns about the Registrants’ conduct on the scene and completed an Incident Report Form (IR1).
15. At a point unknown Patient A was transferred to a MTC. He passed away just under two weeks later on 12 December 2018.
16. The following witnesses were called on behalf of the HCPC:
• RS - Service Delivery Manager and Investigating Officer at the Trust
• RL - EMT on DCA2
• Dr K - expert Paramedic witness
17. In his defence the Registrant provided oral evidence to the panel.
18. The substantive hearing panel heard this matter on 25-28 April 2022 and 19-21 October 2022 and found allegations 1(a), 1(b)(iii), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) proved, and went on to consider whether these facts amount to misconduct. No further consideration was given to allegation 1(b)(i).
19. The substantive hearing panel also found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards:
Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics
• Standard 1 – to promote and protect the interests of service users and carers;
• Standard 6 – To manage risk; Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics
• Standard 1 – to be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice;
• Standard 4 – to be able to practise as an autonomous professional, exercising their own professional judgment;
• Standard 8 – to be able to communicate effectively;
• Standard 15 – to understand the need to establish and maintain a safe practice environment.
20. The substantive hearing panel found that the proven facts constituted misconduct, stating as follows;
“…The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s acts and omissions fell far below the standards expected of a registered paramedic.
The Registrant did not provide Patient A with adequate treatment when he attended Patient’s A’s address on 30 November 2018. Although he was the lead clinician, he did not undertake an appropriate level of assessment of Patient A, nor did he ensure that an appropriate assessment was conducted. He did not appropriately manage the potential risk of a C-spine injury and either did not recognise the reasons for Patient A’s drop in level of consciousness and snoring or did not react appropriately to these factors. Furthermore, the Registrant did not ensure that Patient A was conveyed to a MTC and did not accompany Patient A to hospital.
The Panel acknowledged that all professionals make mistakes. It also recognised that the factual findings relate to one patient on a single occasion. However, the Panel took the view that the Registrant’s shortcomings went beyond professional misjudgement. They involve multiple acts and omissions each of which are serious and each of which represent significant departures from the standards expected of registered paramedics at all times.
The Panel noted that as the lead clinician the Registrant was the primary decision maker. He was expected to lead and direct others and in consultation with others manage the scene and patient care. As Dr K stated, in his expert report, the Registrant was not required to undertake all interventions himself but was required to satisfy himself that any delegation of tasks was appropriate.
The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions demonstrated poor clinical management in relation to a vulnerable patient. Appropriate clinical assessments of patients is a core paramedic skill. In the absence of such an assessment, patients are likely to be exposed to unwarranted risk of harm. The Registrant did not ensure that Patient A was treated in a way that appropriately managed the risk of harm or protected his interests. The Panel accepted the expert opinion of Dr K, that by not undertaking or directing another clinician to undertake an adequate assessment of Patient A the Registrant fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent paramedic.
The Registrant’s clinical shortcomings included not managing the potential for C-spine injury in that he inappropriately applied a head tilt chin lift manoeuvre. The particular circumstances in this case should have caused the Registrant to suspect a spinal or spinal cord injury and treat Patient A appropriately based on that suspicion. The Registrant was unable or unwilling to react appropriately to key clinical factors which indicated that an intervention was required. He did not report any concerns he had about the condition and treatment of Patient A promptly and appropriately to his colleagues at the scene. Nor did he communicate effectively, as evidenced by the lack of proper and clear interaction with his colleagues before allowing them to leave the scene without him. The Registrant’s shortcomings did not demonstrate safe and effective practice. On the contrary, his conduct had the potential to cause significant harm to Patient A.”
21. The substantive hearing panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired on both the personal and public component. The substantive hearing panel stated as follows;
“The Panel noted that the Registrant accepted the majority of the allegations at the outset of the hearing. The Panel also noted that included within the main hearing bundle was the reflective statement of the Registrant, prepared 2019, and in advance of this stage of the proceedings it was provided with a voluminous bundle of character references and evidence of courses that he has undertaken. Therefore, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight, in that he has some appreciation of the nature and gravity of his shortcomings. However, the Panel concluded that his insight is limited for the following reasons.
The Panel recognised that following an adverse clinical event, attending courses can be very useful, but it is the learning that has been achieved and how that learning will be imbedded into clinical practise which is of paramount importance. The Panel noted that a number of the courses had been taken in 2018 or earlier and some are not relevant to the Panel’s factual findings; for example, Business Continuity, Conflict Resolution, Countering Fraud, Bribery and Corruption. The Panel acknowledged that the courses entitled “EPRR – Major Incident Initial Response” and “Manual Handling Level 2” are relevant courses. The Panel also acknowledged that the Registrant has not worked as a paramedic since 2018 and his current role as an Emergency Care Assistant does not provide the same opportunities to demonstrate the ability to work safely and effectively as a paramedic in complex situations.
However, it also means that there was no evidence before the Panel that attendance on any of these courses had improved his paramedic practice.
The Registrant did not give oral evidence at this stage of the proceedings and did not provide an up-to-date reflective statement. Therefore, the Panel was reliant on the Registrant’s oral evidence at the fact finding stage and the reflective statement within the hearing bundle to assess the level and scope of his insight. The Panel took the view that the Registrant, during his oral evidence, tried to minimise the extent of his wrongdoing. For example, by giving both contradictory and unconvincing evidence in relation to not ensuring that Patient A was taken to a MTC and not accompanying Patient A to hospital. This indicates that at the fact finding stage he was unable or unwilling to accept the extent of his shortcomings. There was no evidence before the Panel that his insight had developed during the intervening period between the fact finding stage and this stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, his reflective statement appears to be primarily an academic evaluation of the issues in the case rather than a deep and meaningful critique of his own behaviour and the steps he has taken to avoid repetition. There were no expressions of genuine regret or remorse. Nor was there any indication that the Registrant had reflected on the impact of his behaviour on Patient A and their family. The Panel was also concerned that the impact on his more junior colleagues could have been considerable.
For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s insight was limited.
The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant’s misconduct is remediable, as it relates to clinical skills which can be acquired or developed over time, provided there is a willingness to learn from what went wrong. However, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had provided insufficient evidence of remediation. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had provided three positive character references. However, the Panel afforded these references only limited weight as they attested to his professionalism and good nature rather than clinical skills directly relevant to the Panel’s factual findings. For the reasons stated above, the Panel took the view that the courses the Registrant has undertaken, and his reflections did not demonstrate that he is able to clinically manage complex situations autonomously. Therefore, in the absence of full insight and remediation, the Panel concluded that there is an ongoing risk of repetition.
In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired based on the personal component.
In considering the wider public interest the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues which include the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
The Panel noted that paramedics occupy a position of privilege and trust. They are expected to act in a manner which maintains public confidence in them and in the profession. In the Panel’s view the Registrant’s conduct demonstrated a disregard of his professional obligations. Reasonable and well-informed members of the public would be extremely concerned to learn that a lead clinician had not undertaken an adequate assessment of a patient, had exposed the patient to further risk of harm and had not communicated effectively with colleagues or accompanied the patient to hospital. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct undermined public trust and confidence in the paramedic profession.
A significant aspect of the wider public interest is upholding proper standards of behaviour. The Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standard expected and the Panel concluded that public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made, given the seriousness of his conduct and behaviour.”
22. In considering sanction, the substantive hearing panel decided to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. In respect of this Order they stated as follows;
“As the Panel stated in its impairment determination, the Registrant’s misconduct is capable of being remedied provided that there is meaningful reflection and a willingness to learn from what went wrong. The Panel noted that a Conditions of Practice Order requires a willingness on the part of the registrant to comply with them and a determination to learn from serious clinical errors and misjudgements. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has indicated, through his engagement with the regulatory process, that he is committed to returning to practise and is willing to address the concerns regarding his practice. Although the Panel has concluded that the Registrant does not have full insight it was satisfied that he has some insight and there is no indication that he is incapable of developing an appropriate level of insight. The Panel also noted that the Registrant has taken steps towards remediation which in the right clinical setting he will be able to develop further.
The Panel concluded that in these circumstances there are conditions that could be imposed which would protect patients and uphold public trust and confidence in the profession whilst providing the Registrant with the opportunity to work towards a return to safe and effective practise as a paramedic. The Panel was satisfied that the Conditions of Practice would be appropriate, workable and measurable.”
23. The substantive hearing panel imposed the following conditions;
“The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for a period of 2 years, from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Wesley Weathers, must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up employment as a registered paramedic.
2. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of an approved paramedic workplace mentor registered by the HCPC and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of undertaking employment.
3. You must work with your approved paramedic workplace mentor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:
• communication with colleagues and appropriate delegation of responsibility
• clinical assessment and decision making
• identifying areas of clinical risk and signs of patient deterioration
• taking and recording of pertinent patient observations at appropriate intervals
• appropriate transportation and safe discharge of patients for ongoing care
4. Within a month of you undertaking work as a paramedic you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.
5. You must meet with your approved paramedic workplace mentor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
6. You must allow your approved paramedic workplace mentor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
7. You must maintain a reflective practice profile in relation to the points identified above, in condition 3, in your Personal Development Plan and must provide a copy of that profile, outlining your progress, to the HCPC on a three-monthly basis.
8. 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 as a paramedic;
B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with as a paramedic (at the time of application); and
C. any prospective employer you approach to undertake work as a paramedic (at the time of your application).
9. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed as a paramedic or take up any other employment as a paramedic.
10. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.”
Review Hearing submissions
24. Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the current Order of Conditions of Practice should be extended for a further 12 months. Further, she noted that the HCPC was in agreement with the proposed amendment to Condition 2, on which the representative for the Registrant would be addressing the Panel in due course.
25. Ms Bass summarised the background of the case. She noted that the failings were described as multiple acts and omissions, each of which were serious and each of which represented a significant departure from the standards expected of registered paramedics. Ms Bass noted that at all times in the substantive hearing, the panel acknowledged that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight and had some appreciation of the nature and gravity of his shortcomings, which was to his credit. However, she noted that the previous panel determined that the Registrant was either unable or unwilling to accept the extent of his shortcomings and did not reflect, at that point, on the impact of his behaviour. His insight was therefore described as limited. Ms Bass noted that the substantive hearing panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components. She noted that the substantive hearing panel imposed a 2-year Conditions of Practise Order to support him back into safe and effective practise.
26. Ms Bass referred the Panel to the Practise Note, entitled Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders, which suggests that the Panel today ought to take into account a number of factors, including whether there are any other fitness to practise issues. Ms Bass noted that a further fitness practise matter has been raised with the HCPC and is currently ongoing. Ms Bass noted that the matters do not relate to clinical concerns, there has been no factual findings at this stage, and the Registrant submitted his self-referral of the matter in compliance with condition 10 of the conditions of practice. As such, Ms Bass submitted the matter was of limited relevance to decision-making in reviewing the substantive Order today.
27. Ms Bass noted that the focus of the review was on current fitness to practise, and the Registrant would be judged in light of what he has or has not achieved since the date of the sanction. Ms Bass noted that the substantive hearing panel noted that the Registrant had not worked as a paramedic since 2018, although he had worked as an Emergency Care Assistant (ECA). They noted that that role did not provide the same opportunities to demonstrate the ability to work safely and effectively. Ms Bass submitted that as far as she was aware it remains the case that the Registrant has been out of paramedic practise since 2018. She submitted that this was a significant period of time.
28. Ms Bass referred the Panel to the Registrant’s current reflections. She noted that it was not dated. Ms Bass submitted that the reflection did not take account of the effect on junior colleagues, which was one of the concerns articulated by the substantive hearing panel. Ms Bass submitted that the reflection was not of the quality which was indicative of fully developed insight. Ms Bass noted that the Registrant had not been successful in applying for paramedic roles. Ms Bass therefore submitted that there was no evidence of remediation of the concerns articulated by the substantive hearing panel.
29. Further, Ms Bass submitted that the Registrant’s skills were not up to date. Ms Bass therefore invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise does remain impaired. She submitted that the Panel may consider that conditions of practise remain appropriate and proportionate.
30. Ms Bass submitted that the HCPC suggests that 12 months ought to be the minimum extension of the Order as this will allow the Registrant time to secure a role as a paramedic and demonstrate compliance with the Conditions of Practise. Ms Bass noted that the HCPC agreed with the amendment proposed by the Registrant in respect of Condition 2 of the Conditions of Practice Order.
31. Mr James on behalf of the Registrant submitted that he agreed with the proposal of the HCPC that the Conditions of Practice Order should be extended by 12 months. He accepted that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public component on the basis that he has been unable to remediate the concerns as he is not actively working.
32. Mr James noted the difficulties faced by the Registrant in securing a job and submitted that he has been focused on paid employment as an HGV driver.
33. Mr James submitted that condition 2 should be amended as follows; "On undertaking employment you must have an approved paramedic workplace mentor registered by the HCPC and supply details of your mentor to the HCPC within 14 days of undertaking employment."
34. Mr James noted that within the Conditions of Practice drafted by the substantive hearing panel all conditions bar condition 2 referred to a mentor as opposed to a supervisor. He noted that the proposed amendment was minor and was sought to reflect the rest of the Order, so that the word supervisor was replaced with mentor.
35. Mr James asked the Panel for time to speak to the Registrant regarding his reflective piece, on return he confirmed that it was prepared over the last week. He stated that the Registrant was using more of his emotions in this reflective piece. Mr James noted that the Registrant expressed remorse and understanding and offers his condolences to the family affected.
36. Following the conversation between the Registrant and Mr James, Mr James stated that the Registrant had now had time to reflect on the position he placed a junior colleague in. Mr James stated the Registrant has noted that if he had gone with the junior colleague to hospital, she would not have been facing this stressful situation alone. Mr James noted that the Registrant had stated that he put stress on his junior colleague, and she would have probably blamed herself for matters to a degree. Mr James noted that the Registrant now knows what he could have done differently.
37. Mr James acknowledged that the Panel may feel that the Registrant could go further with his insight but stated that the Registrant had shown insight in his reflective written piece and had also expanded upon this today during their discussion. Mr James outlined the CPD certificates achieved by the Registrant and submitted that he has sought to develop his practice further. Mr James also noted the Registrant’s continued engagement.
38. In respect of the further fitness to practice issue, Mr James noted that this was a contested allegation, and he agreed with the HCPC’s position in respect of its relevance.
39. In respect of the provision under which the Order should be reviewed Mr James had initially indicated that the matter should be reviewed under Article 30(2), if the Panel is in agreement with his submission that the conditions should be amended, so the new condition could come into effect immediately. Following discussion around the Registrant’s requirements in respect of returning to work Mr James conceded that there was no need for the change to be immediately effective. He therefore agreed the Panel should continue to review the Order under Article 30(1).
40. The Panel considered its position in respect of the further fitness to practice matter. It noted that it had been provided with very limited information in respect of this matter and considered its obligation to consider other fitness to practise issues as set out within the Practice Note on the review of Article 30 sanction orders. On the basis that the full information was not before the Panel, the Panel requested further information from the HCPC. The Panel were provided with a copy of the Allegation, which is due to be heard at a hearing on 25 November 2024. The Panel noted that the Registrant made a self-referral in respect of the Allegation, prior to the Substantive Hearing of the current matters. Therefore, there were no issues with respect to his compliance with the current Conditions of Practice Order. The further fitness to practise Allegation was of completely different nature, fully denied and there were no findings of facts at this stage. Having reviewed the full details of the further fitness to practice matter, the Panel agreed with parties that the information was not relevant to its current determination.
Legal Assessor’s advice
41. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review to determine if the Registrant is fit to return to unrestricted practice and referred the Panel to the approach to be adopted. The Panel’s role is not to conduct a rehearing of the allegation or go behind the previous findings. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to take into account the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders and Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired. If it determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, then the Panel must go on to consider what restriction, if any, should be imposed.
42. The Panel should bear in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and have regard to the Sanctions Policy. Any Order under Article 30 should be the least restrictive order that would suffice to protect the public and/or would otherwise be in the public interest.
43. The Panel were reminded or its powers under Article 30(1) and 30(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001.
Decision
44. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has to make an assessment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise as at today’s date. The Panel has taken into account the HCPTS Practice Notes of Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders and on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired. The Panel noted that it must take into account the personal component, which includes the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant, and the public component, which includes protecting service users, declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the profession.
45. The Panel noted that this review process requires a Registrant to demonstrate both developed insight and remediation before returning to unrestricted practice. There is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate that he is safe to return to practice.
46. The Panel took into consideration all the documentation before it, and the submissions made. The Panel found, that while there has been some further reflection and insight demonstrated by the Registrant, there has been no material change in the Registrant’s circumstances since the substantive hearing. The Panel considered that the Registrant has not therefore discharged the burden of demonstrating that he is safe to return to practice.
47. While the Panel notes that the Registrant has provided updated reflective pieces and further CPD, the Registrant has not provided any evidence of remediation since the last hearing.
48. The Panel considered that the actions of the Registrant fell significantly short of what was expected of a paramedic and without successful remediation there was insufficient evidence before the Panel that the concerns found proved would not be repeated.
49. The Panel noted that both parties agreed that the Registrant’s practice remains impaired on both the personal and public component.
50. Consequently, the Registrant has failed to persuade the Panel that his fitness to practice is no longer impaired. In the absence of steps taken to remediate the initial concerns the Panel finds that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components.
51. The Panel considered whether to take no action or impose a Caution Order and took into consideration the guidance within the Sanctions Policy as to when such an Order was appropriate. The Panel concluded that such an Order would not be sufficient to protect the public, nor would it be in the public interest given the Registrant’s misconduct.
52. The Panel next considered whether to extend the Conditions of Practice Order as proposed by both parties in this case.
53. The Panel noted paragraph 106 of the sanction policy which provides as follows;
A Conditions of Practice Order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the registrant has insight;
• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and
• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.
54. The Panel considered that Conditions of Practice continue to be appropriate and workable in this case, given the Registrant’s willingness to comply with conditions, his insight and the fact that he does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.
55. The Panel considered that extending the Conditions of Practice Order by a further 12 months would provide adequate protection for the public given the nature of the concerns and the insight demonstrated by the Registrant to date. The Panel considered a 12-month period would provide the Registrant with sufficient time to obtain employment and demonstrate to a further panel the required level of remediation.
56. The Panel considered the more restrictive sanction of a Suspension but determined given the Registrant’s developing insight engagement and willingness to seek employment as a paramedic, such an Order would not be proportionate in the circumstances.
57. The Panel next went on to consider the proposed amendment by Mr James that Condition 2 be amended to state “On undertaking employment you must have an approved paramedic workplace mentor registered by the HCPC and supply details of your mentor to the HCPC within 14 days of undertaking employment." The Panel considered that such an amendment was in line with the substantive hearing panel’s decision, as the conditions of practice referenced throughout “a mentor” as opposed to a “supervisor”. In this regard the Panel considered that the amendment was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Order
The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for a period of 12 months, from the date that this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Mr Wesley Weathers, must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up employment as a registered paramedic.
2. On undertaking employment you must have an approved paramedic workplace mentor registered by the HCPC and supply details of your mentor to the HCPC within 14 days of undertaking employment.
3. You must work with your approved paramedic workplace mentor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:
a. communication with colleagues and appropriate delegation of responsibility
b. clinical assessment and decision making
c. identifying areas of clinical risk and signs of patient deterioration
d. taking and recording of pertinent patient observations at appropriate intervals
e. appropriate transportation and safe discharge of patients for ongoing care
4. Within a month of you undertaking work as a paramedic you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.
5. You must meet with your approved paramedic workplace mentor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
6. You must allow your approved paramedic workplace mentor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
7. You must maintain a reflective practice profile in relation to the points identified above, in condition 3, in your Personal Development Plan and must provide a copy of that profile, outlining your progress, to the HCPC on a three-monthly basis.
8. 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 as a paramedic;
B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with as a paramedic (at the time of application); and
C. any prospective employer you approach to undertake work as a paramedic (at the time of your application).
9. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed as a paramedic or take up any other employment as a paramedic.
10. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
Notes
Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Wesley Weathers
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
25/11/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Hearing has not yet been held |
25/11/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Hearing has not yet been held |
31/10/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
15/10/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Adjourned |
18/10/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
25/04/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |