Sarah L Newman

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents before it that the Registrant had been properly served with Notice of this hearing. It had sight of the letter sent by email sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 15 May 2025 informing her of the date and time of the remote hearing. The Panel was aware in view of the legal advice it received, that 28 days’ notice is required and that all that is required of the Regulator is to evidence that notice has been sent to the Registrant’s address as held on the register. The Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021 allow for the service of documents by email. The Panel had sight of the email delivery receipt and the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, which confirmed her email address. As such, the Panel determined that good service had been effected.

Proceeding in Absence
2. Ms Sampson made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant was aware of this hearing in light of her statement prepared for this hearing and email correspondence with the case manager in which she stated that she would not be attending. Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself and that any disadvantage was largely mitigated by the statement she had provided. Ms Sampson submitted that this is a statutory review, and if the current Order were not reviewed prior to its expiry on 27 June 2025 then the Registrant would be free to return to unrestricted practice.

3. The Panel was aware that in accordance with rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules it had a discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In determining whether in all the circumstances it was fair to do so, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence. It was aware, in view of the legal advice it received, of the factors which should inform its decision, as set out in R v Jones [2003] UKPC 34. It had regard to the case of General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 where the judge summarised the position as follows: “Where there is good reason not to proceed the case should be adjourned; where there is not however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

4. The Panel found, in view of her statement and email correspondence, that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had waived her right to attend. She indicated she was content for the hearing to proceed in her absence. She had not requested an adjournment notwithstanding that she had been sent the Practice Note on Postponements and Adjournments. Her reason for non-attendance was her work as a teaching assistant. The Panel considered that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure her attendance at a later date. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant would be significantly disadvantaged by her non-attendance because she provided a detailed statement, she had not been working and requested that the current conditions of practice order be continued. The Panel therefore determined that it was fair to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In reaching this decision to took into account the statutory requirement for review of the substantive order and noted that it would not be possible to give a further 28 days’ notice for a review before the Order expires. The Panel granted the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Parts of the hearing in Private
5. Ms Sampson made an application parts of the hearing, specifically any references to the Registrant’s health, to be heard in private. This was because the Registrant had said in her statement that health was the reason she had not been able to work as an occupational therapist since the last hearing.

6. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and was aware that it had a discretion to proceed in private if this was required in order to protect the private life of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the relevant Practice Note and advised that the Panel was being asked to carry out a balancing exercise between the public interest in the matter being heard entirely in public on the one hand, and the Registrant’s right to privacy in respect of her health on the other. The Panel considered that the public interest would not be served by the Registrant’s private health matters being heard in public and her right to privacy outweighed the public interest in that regard. The Panel determined that any parts of the hearing that related to the Registrant’s health would be heard in private.

Background
7. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist who was employed by the Cambridgeshire County Council (‘the Council’) between 5 June 2017 and 31 May 2019. The Registrant managed a clinical caseload of patients who were elderly, frail, had a physical disability, learning disabilities, or had dementia. The Registrant’s role involved conducting moving and handling assessments, prescribing occupational therapy equipment, and working alongside the Social Care Team to ensure that necessary care packages were in place for those patients.

8. On 4 April 2019, Person R, Occupational Therapy Team Manager at the Council, conducted a review of 21 cases that were in the Registrant’s caseload at the time. Person R then concluded that the Registrant failed to complete essential documentation. Person R had concerns that:
a) The Registrant had issued equipment without the required documentation.
b) The Registrant had failed to write her notes in respect of assessments carried out on a number of patients.
c) The Registrant wrote assessment notes after the appointments, which meant that the notes were not contemporaneous.

9. In April 2019, the Council commenced an investigation into those concerns. The Council’s internal investigation was completed on 12 July 2019. On 5 September 2019, the Council made a referral to the HCPC.

10. At its meeting on 17 March 2021, a Panel of the Investigating Committee of the HCPC determined that there was a case to answer.

11. Following the outcome of the Investigating Committee, Kingsley Napley LLP was instructed by the HCPC to undertake an investigation in relation to the allegation detailed above. As part of this investigation, a witness statement was obtained from Person R and multiple exhibits were provided by Person R and the Council in support of the concerns and its own investigation.

12. In due course, the Registrant completed a Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma confirming that she admitted the substance of the allegation made against her and that her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct/lack of competence. The form stated that she wished for the matter to be dealt with by way of the HCPC imposing a Conditions of Practice Order. The Registrant had already provided documentation in support of her application for an agreed disposal including, a response to the Council’s investigation, certificates of training, and character references.

13. The matter went to a hearing on 30 May 2023 where the Panel determined that the Conditions of Practice Order agreed between the Registrant and Kingsley Napley LLP was an appropriate manner of disposal because it was sufficient to protect the public and meet the public interest. The conditions were:
1) You must keep the HCPC informed about anywhere you are working as an HCPC registered Occupational Therapist by:
a) Telling the HCPC within seven days of accepting or leaving any employment; and
b) Giving the HCPC your employer’s contact details.
2) You must immediately give a copy of these conditions to:
a) Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work which requires registration with the HCPC or another statutory regulator;
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 application).
On your return to practising as an HCPC registered Occupational Therapist:
3) You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within one month of you returning to practice. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.
4) You must work with the workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in your record-keeping practices.
5) Within one month of commencing work as an Occupational Therapist you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.
6) You must meet with the workplace supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
7) You must request that your workplace supervisor provides a report to the HCPC at least 14 days before any review of this conditions of practice order.
8) You must allow the workplace supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan. Your workplace supervisor must report to the HCPC on a quarterly basis. This report must show your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
9) You must promptly inform the HCPC of any capability or disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.
10) The conditions listed at 1 – 9 above shall remain in place for the duration of twenty- four months from the Operative Date.

14. This is the first review of that Order.

Submissions
15. Ms Sampson submitted that the role of the Panel is to consider whether all the concerns of the original panel have been sufficiently addressed and that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant. She submitted that the Registrant remains impaired, and indeed this was accepted by the Registrant in her statement prepared for this hearing. The Registrant had not worked since 2019 and had not been able to secure a role since the hearing in May 2023.

16. Ms Sampson submitted that the Panel had the full range of sanctions available to it, including strike-off. However, the HCPC was not opposed to the Registrant’s request for the Conditions of Practice Order to be extended for a further two years. She invited the Panel to consider whether any changes were necessary to the current Order, or recommendation made to assist the next reviewing panel.

17. The Registrant had provided a written statement in which she explained that she was unable to attend the hearing because this week she is responsible for conducting Key Stage 1 phonics tests at the primary school where she works as a teaching assistant.

18. The Registrant confirmed that she accepts that her fitness to practise remains impaired by her previous misconduct and lack of competence, because she has not been working in as an Occupational Therapist. She had further reflected since the last hearing and referred to mitigating factors present at the relevant time which she considered had contributed to her shortcomings, namely a lack of support and supervision from her employer. She stated that she remains committed to the profession and has continued to participate in workshops, online discussions and self-directed reading and research.

19. With regard not having worked in an occupational therapy role, the Registrant stated that [REDACTED]. That had impacted on her ability to apply for roles in occupational therapy. She said she has now recovered and she plans to look for a registered role where she can work under the conditions of practice.

20. The Registrant asked the Panel to extend the current Conditions of Practice Order.

Legal Advice
21. The Legal Assessor summarised the Panel’s powers at a review in accordance with Article 30 of the Health Professions Order. She advised that the Sanctions Policy gives guidance as to the purpose of a review, and that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant in accordance with Abrahaem v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin).

Decision
22. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s statement and considered that she had demonstrated insight and remorse. It noted that she accepted that her fitness to practise was and remains impaired, but was asking the Panel for a further opportunity to demonstrate her ability to practise in line with the HCPC’s standards, and in due course, return to unrestricted practice. The Panel found that the Registrant remains engaged with the regulatory process and has demonstrated a willingness to address the original panel’s concerns. Whilst she has not been able to work as an Occupational Therapist since May 2023 she has undertaken further CPD demonstrating a commitment to the profession.

23. The original panel made a finding of impairment as to do so was necessary to protect the public and also it considered that such a finding was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession. Today the Panel found that the Registrant remains impaired and therefore a sanction must remain in place to protect the public in view of the nature of allegations she admitted. This was because failing to keep adequate notes and complete documentation in a timely manner posed a direct risk to service users, not only in terms of continuity of care, but because of the risk that necessary interventions would not be provided.

24. Notwithstanding the insight the Registrant demonstrated both at the original hearing and in her statement before this Panel, and the CPD she has undertaken, there was a lack of evidence of the Registrant’s ability to put her learning into practice, as she has not worked in a registered occupational therapist role under the conditions of practice. It followed that there remained risks to service users if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice and a sanction must therefore remain in place for their protection.

25. The Panel considered that the public interest was met by the continuation of a sanction to protect the public. The risks flowing from the allegations were to the safety of service users. This was not a matter that otherwise impacted on public confidence in the profession. Given that Registrant’s insight and the steps she has taken, and continues to take to remediate her past failings, confidence in the profession was maintained and an additional finding of impairment in the public interest was not required.

26. The Panel next considered the necessary sanction, as at today, to mitigate the ongoing risks to the public. It determined that anything less than conditions of practice was insufficient, as the concerns related to the Registrant’s ability to practice safely. The Panel carefully reviewed the current conditions of practice and determined that they remain appropriate to manage the identified risks to the public. The Registrant’s continued commitment to return to professional practice gave the Panel assurance that she is likely to comply with the conditions if she is able to secure employment.

27. The Panel considered that a suspension order would be disproportionate because it would not assist the Registrant to demonstrate that she is now able to practise safely and this was not a case where there were wider public interest concerns.

28. The Panel agreed with the Registrant’s proposal that extending the current Conditions of Practice Order for two years would give her sufficient opportunity to find a role with the necessary support and with a supervisor, work to demonstrate her ability to keep accurate and timely records and hence practice safely.

29. There will be a further hearing before the extended order expires. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by:
• Evidence of CPD undertaken since the hearing in May 2023, with a focus on record keeping;
• Testimonial or reference from the Registrant’s employer and any other people who can testify as to her work and commitment to the profession;

ORDER: The Registrar is directed extend the current Conditions of Practice Order for a further 24 months from its expiry

The Order imposed today will apply from 27 June 2025.

History of Hearings for Sarah L Newman