Ann Mclaughin
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 (OT10973):
1. On one or more occasions between 09 June 2020 and November 2022:
a. You did not adequately, or at all, communicate and/or provide updates in a timely manner to the Service Users outlined in Schedule A.
b. You did not work on agreed actions to meet service user needs in a timely manner for the Service Users outlined in Schedule B, in that:
i. You did not take adequate, or any action after identifying risks;
ii. You did not order required equipment after identifying the necessity, and/or;
iii. You did not make referrals after identifying the necessity.
c. You did not adequately, or at all, record ‘All About Me’ Assessments in a timely manner for one or more of the service users set out in Schedule C, in that they weren’t completed and/or lacked detail.
2. The matters set out in particular 1 above constitutes misconduct and/or lack of competence.
3. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence.
Finding
The Skeleton Argument
1. For the purposes of this hearing, the HCPC has submitted and the Panel has read, a Skeleton Argument signed by Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan Solicitors, dated 2 May 2025 (“the Skeleton Argument”). Ms Strickland adopted the Skeleton Argument as the basis of her submission to the Panel. The Panel has read all the relevant documents that are referred to in the Skeleton Argument.
Preliminary Matters
Proceeding in private
2. Ms Strickland submitted that if there was any reference to the health of the Registrant, those parts of this hearing should be conducted in private so as to ensure that such matters should not be made public. Mr Oestreicher supported this application.
3. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that in order to ensure that matters that relate to the health of the Registrant should not be public, any matters that relate to the health of the Registrant should be received in private, but otherwise this was a public hearing. In the event there were no references to the health of the Registrant that needed to be received in private.
Background (taken from the Skeleton Argument)
4. The Registrant worked as a community occupational therapist for West Lothian Council (“the Council”) for 36 years from 1986 until January 2023. Following a history of formal and informal performance management over a number of years, in March 2021, her performance was managed under the Council’s Supporting Performance Framework. There were particular concerns about her ability to manage a case load and take timely actions for clients. As her performance did not improve sufficiently, at final capability meeting in January 2023, the Council concluded that she needed to be redeployed. She retired and has been in receipt of a local government pension since 1 April 2023.
5. The Registrant has not been and is not currently subject to an Interim Order.
6. On 19 December 2023, an Investigating Committee Panel (ICP) considered the matter and found a case to answer. It referred an Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC). That Allegation is set out in the Notice of Allegation dated 3 January 2024 and is set out above.
7. In her response to the ICP dated 23 November 2023 the Registrant accepted that she struggled to organise her workload to complete her record keeping in a timely manner. She also accepted that she did not always communicate with her clients, or progress actions to meet their needs quickly enough. She confirmed she did not intend to seek employment as an occupational therapist again following her retirement, and indicated she would be willing to consider consensual disposal.
8. The Registrant has provided and the Panel has read;
a. A consensual disposal request pro forma dated 10 June 2024 in which the Registrant admits the substance of the Allegation and agrees that her fitness to practise is impaired by her lack of competence.
b. A voluntary removal agreement signed by the Registrant on 1 May 2025;
c. Confirmation of the Registrant’s retirement and receipt of a pension from 1 April 2023;
d. A short statement dated August 2024, in which the Registrant reflects briefly on the personal difficulties that affected her performance at work and her decision to retire as a result.
Submissions
The HCPC
9. The HCPC’s submissions in support of a Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”), which are adopted by Ms Strickland, are set out in the Skeleton Argument in the following terms. The paragraph numbers used in the Skeleton Argument have been retained but are shown in brackets:
‘(12). The HCPC submits that this matter is suitable for disposal by way of VRA because:
a. The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation. They have signed a consensual disposal request pro forma which sets out the allegation that is capable of proof, and
confirmed that they admit the substance of that allegation, that it amounts to a lack of competence, and their fitness to practise is impaired as a result.
b. Voluntary removal adequately protects the public. The Registrant would be removed from the HCPC register and would not be entitled to practise as [an] occupational therapist. Their personal circumstances are such that there is no realistic prospect of them seeking to return to practise in future. They have undertaken not to seek to return to the register within a period of five years, and should they attempt to do so at that point, they would have to demonstrate that they had fully remediated their current impairment.
c. Voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest. There is no public interest in holding a public hearing in circumstances where the Registrant admits her impairment by reason of lack of competence and seeks permanent removal from the register. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the professions and promoting proper professional standards is best addressed by removing the Registrant from the register at the earliest opportunity.
(13). The Panel is invited to approve the VRA and withdraw the proceedings’.
10. Ms Strickland made submissions to the Panel. In summary she adopted the Skeleton Argument as her submission to the Panel. She said that she was ready to respond to questions from the Panel. She responded to one relating to the length of the Registrant’s professional career, which had lasted 36 years.
The Registrant
11. Mr Oestreicher, on behalf of the Registrant, supported the application for a VRA. He noted the length of the Registrant’s career. Both he and the Registrant accepted that the time had come for her to retire.
Decision
12. The Panel has considered the submissions of the HCPC as set out in the Skeleton Argument and adopted by Ms Strickland. The Panel has also considered the submissions of Mr Oestreicher. The Panel has further considered all the documents that have been submitted or referred to.
13. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
14. In deciding whether or not to approve the VRA, the Panel has had regard to the Practice Note published by the HCPTS in March 2018, entitled ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ together with the policy document annexed to it as ‘Annex A’. The Panel noted that all the relevant criteria, procedural and substantive, had been complied with by both the HCPC and the Registrant.
15. The Panel noted the length of the Registrant’s professional career and congratulated her on the realism with which she has approached the present concerns. The Panel has concluded that the VRA should be approved and that an order should be made in the terms set out below. Its reasons are as follows;
a. The Registrant has admitted the substance of the Allegation. She has also admitted that her fitness to practise is thereby impaired.
b. The HCPC has fully explained the reasons for seeking approval of the VRA.
c. The public will be adequately protected by the voluntary removal of the Registrant’s name from the Register, which will have the same effect as if she had been struck off.
d. Such an outcome is also in the interests of the Registrant. Moreover, it addresses and safeguards the public interest.
e. There are no reasons of a public interest kind to require a substantive fitness to practise hearing
f. The Panel has concluded that a well informed member of the public would conclude that this matter is properly disposed of by the consensual outcome sought by the both the Registrant and the HCPC.
16. For all the reasons that are set out above, the Panel has determined to approve the outcome sought in the VRA with immediate effect: In particular, the Panel agrees that the HCPC should be permitted to withdraw the Allegation and the Registrant shall voluntarily remove her name from the Register with effect from today’s date.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Ann McLaughlin from the Register with immediate effect.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Ann Mclaughin
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/05/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |