Carol E Fulton
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 Occupational Therapist (OT23382) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence. In that:
1) In January 2016, you went to have your car serviced and told your team that Colleague A was aware of your whereabouts, when this was not the case.
2) On or around 22 December 2016, you retrospectively made entries in Patient B’s patient notes, without documenting that these were being entered retrospectively.
3) Between January and December 2016 you did not record statistics in an accurate and/or appropriate manner, in that:
a) you entered episodes of statistics which had no corresponding entry within the patient notes of:
i. Patient E
ii. Patient F
iii. Patient G
iv. Patient H
v. Patient K
vi. Patient L
vii. Patient M
viii. Patient O
ix. Patient P
b) you entered episodes of statistics, when it was not appropriate to do so, with respect to:
i. Patient A
ii. Patient A3
iii. Patient E
iv. Patient G
v. Patient J
vi. Patient K
vii. Patient R
viii. Patient S
ix. Patient T
x. Patient U
xi. Patient V
xii. Patient W
c) you made entries in patient records without making a corresponding entry in the statistics for:
i. Patient H
ii. Patient X
iii. Patient Y
iv. Patient Z
4) Between January 2016 and April 2018, you did not record patient notes in an adequate and/or timely and/or consistent manner.
5) Between 2015 and 2016 you did not ensure that patient notes were appropriately stored and/or available for other staff to access when needed.
6) Between January and December 2016, you utilised your own disclaimer to obtain permission to enter patients’ homes when they were not present, when this was not an official document.
7) Between January and December 2016, you conducted unsolicited visits to patient homes without first obtaining informed consent from the patient and/or their next of kin and/or making prior arrangements for these visits, with respect to:
a) Patient A2
b) Patient C
c) Patient H
d) Patient V
8) In November 2016, you completed a Montreal Cognitive Assessment on Patient S, despite Patient S lacking capacity to provide informed consent for said assessment.
9) Between January and December and December 2016, you did not conduct adequate assessments and/or treatment planning with respect to:
a) Patient A2
b) Patient C
c) Patient V
10) Your conduct in relation to allegations 1 - 3 above was dishonest.
11) The matters set out at allegations 2 – 9 above constitute lack of competence.
12) The matters set out at allegations 1 – 10 above constitute misconduct.
13) By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practice is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Hearing partly in private
1. Ms Collins applied for any parts of the hearing which made reference to the Registrant’s health to proceed in private. The Registrant indicated that she agreed with this.
2. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that those parts of the hearing which referred to the Registrant’s health should be in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).
Background
3. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist who was employed by NHS Grampian (“the Trust”) from 2006 until February 2019.
4. In February 2016, concerns were raised by Colleagues B and C about the Registrant’s record keeping and patient notes. These concerns were raised with Colleague A, the Registrant’s Line Manager. Colleague A then held an informal meeting with the Registrant and an action plan was drawn up.
5. In 2017, the Registrant had a period of leave and upon her return she had a work placement at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary from the end of 2017 until early 2018. During this placement, the Registrant worked closely with Colleague E. Colleague E provided a report to the Trust setting out her concerns about the Registrant’s record keeping. In May 2018, a formal internal investigation was conducted by Dawn Duncan at the Trust. The investigation was around recording of statistics with patient notes, recording notes in a timely manner and obtaining consent from patients to conduct visits and assessments.
6. On 15 February 2019, a fitness to practise referral was made to the HCPC in respect of the Registrant allegedly falsifying patient records and patient statistics between January 2016 and December 2016.
7. At its meeting on 23 July 2020, a Panel of the HCPC’s Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer in relation to an allegation of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise.
8. On 30 March 2023 the HCPC applied for partial discontinuance and amendments to the allegation. Amendments and partial discontinuance were granted so that the allegation now reads as set out at the start of this determination.
Submissions
9. The Panel had regard to the HCPC’s final hearing bundle which included Ms Collins’ skeleton argument dated 21 March 2025 as well as a VRA bundle which included documents from the Registrant, and a VRA document signed by both parties.
10. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Collins that the HCPC was satisfied that voluntary removal from the Register was an appropriate disposal of this case and would not compromise public protection or the wider public interest. Ms Collins referred to the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma form (“Pro-Forma”) signed by the Registrant on 20 August 2024 which indicates that she admitted the substance of the allegations, including misconduct and lack of competence, and accepted that she was impaired.
11. The Panel examined the Registrant’s supporting information appended to her Pro Forma. The Panel raised in open session that while there was a clear statement by the Registrant in the Pro-Forma that she accepted the “substance of the allegation”, there were indications in her supporting information that she did not wholly accept the dishonesty allegations.
12. In the hearing the Legal Assessor gave advice as to the legal definition and elements of dishonesty. The Panel then gave the Registrant time to have a meeting with the Legal Assessor and Ms Collins to hear the legal definition again from the Legal Assessor and to consider the matter further. After that meeting, the Registrant had a break to consider her position, and the hearing resumed.
13. The Legal Assessor summarised the position of the Registrant as expressed in the meeting but asked the Panel to speak to the Registrant directly to confirm her position on the record.
14. The Registrant confirmed to the Panel that she accepted that she was dishonest in relation to Particulars 1, 2 and 3 of the Allegation. The Registrant was questioned further by the Chair of the Panel to ensure that she understood the wider implications which an acceptance of dishonesty allegations may have in other aspects of the Registrant’s professional life in the future. The Registrant confirmed that she understood this and that she accepted all the allegations including the dishonesty.
15. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
16. The Panel reminded itself of the guidance offered in the HCPC Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent”.
17. The Panel took into account all of the material, submissions and evidence before it, including the information the Registrant gave in the Pro- Forma document and her oral submissions.
18. In all the circumstances, the Panel was therefore satisfied that the HCPC has put forward an objectively justified explanation for why the matter is suitable for disposal by a VRA.
19. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has had it explained to her that the ultimate decision as to whether or not to approve the VRA lies with the Panel.
20. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has had sufficient information about the VRA process, and has been clear about her acceptance of all the allegations, and that her fitness to practise is impaired, as reflected in the VRA signed by her. She has also been clear about her wish to be removed from the Register.
21. The Panel was satisfied that the public would be protected by the removal of the Registrant from the Register, as it would have the same effect as if she had been struck off the Register.
22. It was clear to the Panel that there was nothing specific about this particular case which required the issues to be ventilated at a final hearing to meet the demands of the public interest. The Registrant had admitted the Allegation in full and accepted that her fitness to practice is impaired. Furthermore, she has stated that she has no intention of returning to the profession. As a result, the Panel was satisfied that the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards would not be undermined if this matter was disposed of by consent. The public interest would not be adversely affected by the VRA. Rather, in the Panel’s view, the public interest would be served by the expeditious resolution provided by the VRA in the circumstances.
23. The Panel therefore decided to approve the VRA.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Carol E Fulton from the Register with immediate effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Carol E Fulton
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28/03/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |