Christopher Eyton-Jones

Background

1.     The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.

2.     On 21 June 2021, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant, who was employed as a newly qualified Paramedic at the Welsh Ambulance Service Trust (“the Trust”). He notified the HCPC that he had been placed on alternative, non-patient facing duties, pending disciplinary investigation, due to him not adhering strictly to the Trust Newly Qualified Paramedic (NQP) Deviation Policy and several incidents where his clinical decision making was deemed incorrect. Ten incidents were identified by the Trust, which included six episodes of inaccurate record keeping, five instances where the Trust’s NQP Deviation Policy had not been followed, and six instances where the level of clinical practice was deemed unsafe.

3.     On 15 September 2021, the Registrant was dismissed by the Trust, but the Registrant appealed this decision. On 8 December 2021, the Registrant’s appeal was successful, and his dismissal was reversed and reduced to a final written warning, to remain active for 24 months, and for him to be placed on a formal capability process.

4.     The Trust disclosed documents evidencing earlier concerns about the Registrant’s practice, which had resulted in an action plan in or about July 2020 being put in place for the Registrant’s improvement. The Registrant had satisfied the criteria set out in the action plan later in 2020. Due to the similarity between the earlier incidents in 2020 and the incidents raised with the later investigation in 2021, particulars for the earlier incidents were included for consideration by the ICP, where the Trust were able to provide supporting evidence in the form of Patient Care Records (PCRs).

5.     On 8 December 2021, the HCPC requested details of the Registrant’s action plan put in place following the Trust’s appeal decision. On 3 February 2022, the Trust advised that the Registrant had resigned from his position and his last working day was 13 February 2022. The action plan referred to in paragraph 7, was therefore not completed by the Registrant.

6.     On 27 September 2023, the Registrant informed the HCPC that he had secured employment as a paramedic at TPG Medical.

7.     The investigation conducted by Blake Morgan LLP on behalf of the HCPC, included obtaining witness evidence from employees of the Trust. Witness evidence has been obtained from:

·       Huw Jackson – Health Board Clinical Lead for the Trust;

·       Gareth Derwas – Duty Operational Manager for the Trust; and

·       Sion Breese – Locality Manager for the Trust.

8.     On 22 October 2024, the Registrant’s representative submitted a bundle of documents on behalf of the Registrant. This bundle contains a detailed reflection, a schedule of admissions, a testimonial and CPD certificates.

9.     On 5 November 2025, the Registrant’s representative provided some further documents for inclusion in the bundle, relating to his appeal and some further testimonials.

The Registrant’s Admissions

10. The following Particulars of Allegation are admitted by the Registrant:

1.a) On 19 April 2020, you performed and/or recorded only one complete set of observations with respect of Service User A;

1.b) On 21 May 2020, you performed and/or recorded only one complete set of observations with respect to Service User G;

1.c) On 26 June 2020, you performed and/or recorded only one complete set of observations with respect to Service User J;

1.d) On 14 November 2020, you did not perform and/or record a complete set of observations with respect to Service User L;

1.e) On 20 February 2021, you did not perform and/or record a complete set of observations with respect to Service User P;

1.g) On 17 March 2021, you did not perform and/or record a complete set of observations with respect to Service User U.

2.a) On 19 April 2020, you did not provide an onward referral and/or discussion with a general practitioner (GP) with respect to Service User A;

2.c) On 1 May 2020, you did not provide a referral to CSD/GP with respect to Service User C;

2.d) On 1 May 2020, you did not seek CSD input and/or provide a referral to a GP with respect to Service User D;

2.e) On 7 May 2020, you did not seek CDS/GP input with respect to Service User E;

2.f) On 13 May 2020, you did not seek GP/CSD input with respect to Service User F;

2.h) On 25 May 2020, you did not seek CSD/GP input with respect to Service User H;

2.i) On 2 March 2021, you did not provide a referral with respect to Service User R;

2.j) On 10 March 2021, you did not provide a referral to hospital with respect to Service User T;

2.k) On 17 March 2021, you did not discuss Service User U’s symptoms with a healthcare professional and/or provide a referral to hospital with respect to Service User U.

5.a) Did not record that Service User N had refused out of hours GP contact; and/or

5.b) Recorded that four sets of observations were taken, ending at 22.00 hours, when Corpuls data shows only three sets of observations were taken, ending at 21.55 hours.

6.b) Did not identify that and/or record identification that Service User Q’s observations were indicative of an underlying injury.

11. The Registrant does not admit the following Particulars of Allegation but notes the following:

1.f) On 22 February 2021, you did not record accurate observations with respect to Service User Q;

Whilst the Registrant denies this allegation and states that a colleague recorded the observations for this patient (pointing out that the observations are in different handwriting to the Registrant’s), he accepts that, as the senior clinician, present he should have checked the observation.

2.b) On 28 April 2020, you did not convey Service User B to hospital and/or did not seek clinical support desk (CSD)/GP input/referral;

The Registrant admits that Service User B was not conveyed and CSD/GP input was not requested but denies that conveyance was required as the patient’s family did not seek this. The Registrant states worsening advice was given and used appropriately.

2.g) On 21 May 2020, you did not provide a referral to epileptic pathway and/or seek a discussion with GP with respect to Service User G;

The Registrant denies this and states that a senior colleague authorised the approach taken and the Registrant did not believe a referral was needed. 

3. On 4 November 2020, you did not maintain accurate and complete records for Service User K, in that you recorded incorrect times for blood pressure monitoring.

The Registrant denies this and states that observations take several minutes to complete. It follows that the time may be different to that recorded by Corpuls. However, the Registrant has reflected that where there is a difference between the machine and the recording, it would be helpful to document this.

4. On 25 November 2020, you did not maintain accurate and complete records for Service User M, in that you recorded that Service User M’s pulse was 80bpm, when Corpuls data showed a rate of 129-147bmp.

The Registrant denies this and states that the machine reading was incorrect and a manual reading was taken to verify the true position. The error, which is accepted by the Registrant, is failing to document that the machine was functioning incorrectly.

6.a) Recorded that a 12-lead ECG was taken when this was not the case;

The Registrant denies this and states that it is a duplication of Particular 1f. The Registrant states that the recording was undertaken by his colleague.

7. Your conduct at particulars 5b, above was dishonest in that you knew that the information recorded was inaccurate and/or misleading.

The Registrant denies this entirely. He states that there is an insufficient basis that this was a dishonest act, and that a fourth set of observations was taken from the continuous monitoring before powering off the Corpuls. He missed the time when documenting the fourth set and added this afterwards by looking at a clock. He states that this was a simple recording error.

The Application to Discontinue the Allegation in Part

12. The HCPC applies to discontinue Particular 7 of the Allegation on the grounds that a panel would be unlikely to make a finding of dishonesty.

13. The allegation of dishonesty relates to Particular 5, which alleges as follows:

5. On 15 February 2021, you did not maintain accurate and complete records for Service User N, in that you:

a) Did not record that Service User N had refused out of hours GP contact; and/or

b) Recorded that four sets of observations were taken, ending at 22.00 hours, when Corpuls data shows only three sets of observations were taken, ending at 21.55 hours.

14. The Registrant accepts recording four sets of observations before powering off the Corpuls. He states that he missed the time when documenting the fourth set, and so added this in afterwards using the time from a clock. The Registrant also asserts that he was under the impression that a fourth blood pressure reading had been taken owing to the readings being extremely similar, so he did not recognise that the third and fourth blood pressure readings were the same. His account is that this was a simple mistake.

15. Mr Doyle submits that there is no evidence to contradict the Registrant’s account or that the Registrant knew at the time that the information recorded was inaccurate and/or that he intended it to be misleading.

16. The HCPC considers that the Registrant has given a plausible explanation which they would be unable to rebut. Mr Doyle further submits that there was no apparent motivation for the Registrant to have acted dishonestly in relation to the matters alleged in Particular 5. It is therefore submitted that a panel would be unlikely to make a finding of dishonesty, as alleged in Particular 7 and that Particular 7 should be discontinued.

17.  If the Panel accepts that submission that Particular 7 should be discontinued, it must follow that Particular 9, which is dependent on Particular 7, should also be discontinued.

18. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Manning-Rees supported the HCPC’s application to discontinue Particulars 7 and 9 of the Allegation.

The Panel’s Decision on the Application to Discontinue the Allegation in Part

19. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Discontinuance of Proceedings” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

20. The Panel noted that:

·       this was the only alleged incident of dishonesty;

·       there is no independent evidence to support the allegation of dishonesty;

·       the Registrant has given a plausible explanation of his conduct which, if accepted, would not result in a finding of dishonesty; and

·       there is no evidence to rebut the Registrant’s explanation.

21. Having carefully considered the evidence contained in the witness statements, the Panel accepted the HCPC’s submission that there would be no reasonable prospect of the HCPC proving dishonesty as alleged in Particular 7. It follows that Particulars 7 and 9 are not well founded. Accordingly, the application to discontinue Particulars 7 and 9 is granted.

The Application for Consensual Disposal by way of a Caution Order

22. The HCPC submits that, should the allegation of dishonesty be discontinued, the remaining Particulars of Allegation, which basically involve lack of competence, can be dealt with by way of consensual disposal.  The HCPC submits that, the Registrant having admitted 18 out of 24 of the Particulars of Allegation, and that his fitness to practise is impaired, the public interest is best served by a consensual disposal in relation to those admissions without the need for a substantive hearing in relation to those Particulars which are not admitted.

23. The HCPC invites the Panel to have regard, in particular, to the following matters:

·      the passage of approximately four years since the incidents occurred, during which time the Registrant has strengthened his practice by engaging in CPD courses whilst working as a firefighter and a custody paramedic;

·      the positive testimonials provided by his current employers. The testimonial from CRG Medical Services states that the Registrant has fully engaged with his statutory and mandatory training requirements and his clinical notes and care plans are frequently audited. He receives regular clinical supervision and no issues or complaints have been raised;

·       the absence of any repetition by the Registrant during the last four years of any of the previous concerns relating to his fitness to practise;

·       the Registrant has shown insight into the key elements of the Allegation and a willingness to address them;

·       the Registrant has provided evidence of safe practice since the date of the relevant incidents, thereby demonstrating that he has remediated his practice; and

·       the risk of repetition is deemed to be low.

24. The HCPC submits that the public interest requires the imposition of a sanction to reflect the number and seriousness of the repeated errors in the Registrant’s practice, in order to uphold proper standards of conduct and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator.

25. Having regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Guidance, the HCPC submits that a Caution Order for two years is the appropriate disposal of the case, given that:

·       the risk of repetition is low;

·        the Registrant has shown good insight and undertaken appropriate remediation; and

·       The Registrant has confirmed that he consents to a two year Caution Order.

26. The HCPC submits that the proposed disposal addresses the need to protect the public and is consistent with the wider public interest.

27. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Manning-Rees supported the HCPC’s application and confirmed that the Registrant did not oppose the imposition of a Caution Order for a period of two years.

The Panel’s Decision

28. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Disposal of Cases by Consent” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

29. The Panel was satisfied that, having agreed to the discontinuance of Particulars 7 and 9 of the Allegation, the remaining Particulars related basically to lack of competence.

30. The Panel accepted the submission that, on the basis of the Registrant’s admissions, it was not in the public interest to have a substantive hearing in relation to those Particulars of Allegation which the Registrant did not admit.

31. With regard to impairment, the Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. With regard to the personal component of impairment, the Panel was satisfied that the risk of repetition is low, having regard to the following:

·       the Registrant’s admissions to most of the Particulars of Allegation;

·       his insight, as expressed in his Reflections, that he had put service users at risk of harm by his lack of competence;

·       his understanding of the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and the negative impact on the profession of failing to do so;

·       the evidence of remediation and that he has continued to practise without restriction as a Paramedic in responsible roles during the last four years since the incidents without any repetition of his past failures in practice;

·       the evidence of his commitment to Continuing Professional Development and training; and

·       the supportive testimonials from professional colleagues who speak well of his competence as a Paramedic and his adherence to professional standards.

32. The Panel went on to consider the public component of impairment and the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. Having regard to the serious and repeated nature of the Registrant’s past failures in practice, and the potential for harm to service users, the Panel considered that public confidence would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

33. With regard to sanction, the Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy when deciding whether the proposed sanction of a Caution Order for two years would be appropriate and proportionate. Taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel considered that the proposed disposal by way of a Caution Order for two years is appropriate and proportionate.

34. As the Registrant is currently deemed to be competent to practise as a Paramedic without restriction, a Conditions of Practice Order would serve no useful purpose.

35. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would be wholly disproportionate.

36. Accordingly, the Panel granted the application for consensual disposal in the manner proposed.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Christopher Eyton-Jones with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 24 months from the date this order comes into effect.
 

No notes available

History of Hearings for Christopher Eyton-Jones