Amanda Maison

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing by email dated 02 October 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended. Delivery of notice of the hearing was confirmed on the same date.

Proceeding in absence
2. Ms Evans made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that she had voluntarily absented herself and waived her right to attend.

3. The Panel noted that there had been communications between the HCPC about scheduling the hearing on dates when the Registrant would be able to attend and allowing sufficient time to enable to Registrant to participate effectively in the hearing from her residence overseas, taking into account the time difference. With those considerations in mind, the hearing was listed for 8 days from 5-14 January 2026 and 19 January 2026. The Registrant was duly notified of this by the notice of hearing dated 2 October 2025, referred to above.

4. By email dated 11 November 2025, the Registrant informed the HCPC that she would be unable to attend on the scheduled dates “due to work commitments and significant time differences” and requested that the hearing be rearranged during the two weeks beginning 9 March 2026 when she would be on annual leave.

5. In response to the Registrant’s request that the hearing be postponed, Capsticks LLP on behalf of the HCPC sent an email to the Registrant on 18 November 2025, attaching a copy of the HCPTS Practice Note on “Postponement and Adjournment of Hearings” and advising her as follows:

“Adjournments and postponement requests are subject to rigorous scrutiny and only granted where there is a good and compelling reason to do so and where it is shown that failing to do so will create a potential injustice. When considering the reasonableness of the request, they will take into account that you were served with notice of the hearing dates on 2 October 2025 and your availability for this was sought in advance, in August 2025.
To assist the HCPTS in considering your request, we should be grateful if you could please provide some further information and supporting evidence, including:
1. With regards to your work commitments, please could you provide any supporting evidence and confirm the following:
1. Whether it would be possible to change the dates of annual leave within March 2026 to January 2026;
2. Whether you have discussed with your employer the reason that you may need to absent yourself from work, and if so, what their response was;
2. To accommodate your time difference in the USA, the timings of the current hearing listing (6 to 14, and 19 January 2026) have been adjusted to 09:00 to 15:00. This was to enable you to attend the hearing virtually from the USA, if you want to. Please could you confirm whether these adjusted timings are helpful such that you could attend, or whether there are any alternative/ additional measures that would assist you in attending the final hearing in January 2026 (i.e. alternative timings)?
If you do want to attend the hearing, it is possible for the hearing to proceed in your absence. You can voluntarily absent yourself by confirming your position in writing. If you do not attend, you can still provide any written submissions/ documents to the Panel for this consideration at the hearing”.

6. Having received no response to this email, Capsticks wrote to the Registrant again by email dated 26 November 2025, asking her to provide the requested information at her earliest opportunity and by 1 December 2025.
7. The Registrant failed to respond to either of these emails from Capsticks.
8. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings” and “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s failure to provide any further information as to why she could not attend this hearing scheduled for January 2026, to which she had previously raised no objection, demonstrated a lack of commitment to participate in the substantive hearing.
9. Having regard to the Practice Note, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had provided any compelling reason for the hearing to be adjourned. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant would attend the hearing if it were adjourned to another date.
10. The Panel considered that there was a strong public interest in the case being concluded without any further delay and this took precedence over any potential unfairness to the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to amend the Particular 3 of the Allegation
11. By email dated 19 December 2025, Capsticks notified the Registrant of the HCPC’s intention to make an application to amend Particular 3 of the Allegation as indicated below and invited her to make any representations:
“The matters set out in Particulars 1 and/or 2, 3 and/or 4 above constitute misconduct.
12. The Registrant did not respond to that email and has raised no objections to the proposed amendment.
13. The Panel noted that the proposed amendment did not alter the substance of the Allegation and merely served to delete words which had become redundant following the decision of a preliminary hearing held on 6 November 2025.
14. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that it had a discretion to amend the Allegation at any time before making findings of fact, provided that no unfairness would thereby be caused to the Registrant. Having satisfied itself that the proposed amendment was appropriate and would cause no unfairness to the Registrant, the Panel granted the application to amend.

Conducting the hearing partly in private
15. The Panel noted that there were references in the documents contained in the hearing bundle to the Registrant’s health. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Evans who agreed that it would be appropriate to go into private where reference was made to the Registrant’s health. The Panel decided that any reference to the Registrant’s health should be heard in private but that the hearing should otherwise be conducted in public.
Background
16. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) and was employed in that capacity at Spire Bushey Hospital (“the Hospital”), where she was based in the theatre department (“the Department”).
17. The Registrant commenced employment at the Hospital, on 1 December 2020 and ended her employment on 18 August 2022.
18. On 9 September 2022, the Director of Clinical Services at Spire Healthcare PLC referred the Registrant to the HCPC, raising the following concerns:
• on 14 March 2022, the Registrant left the operating theatre whilst a patient was under sedation and took the controlled drugs and medication cabinet keys with her; and,
• on 8 February 2022, the Registrant refused to check drugs with another ODP and shouted repeatedly and pointed her finger at her Team Leader, Colleague K, that it was her duty to check the drugs with the Registrant.
19. That referral resulted in these proceedings.

Witnesses and documentary evidence
20. The HCPC provided the Panel with a hearing bundle which included the witness statements of:

• Mr SS, Consultant Surgeon
• Ms GD, who was appointed by the employer to conduct an investigation into the events on 14 March 2022
• Ms DM, Theatre Team Leader, referred to in Particular 2 as Colleague K, who gave evidence as to the incident on 8 February 2022
21. The Panel heard oral evidence from each of the above witnesses.
22. Ms GD exhibited her records of interview with a number of the Hospital’s employees in relation to Particular 1.

The evidence in relation to Particular 1
23. In his evidence-in-chief Mr SS adopted his witness statement in which he gave evidence to the following effect:
• On 14 March 2022, at the Hospital, he was conducting a routine list of surgical procedures in his role as Consultant General Surgeon. He had seven patients booked with 45 minutes allotted per patient.
• He was assisted by a team which included a Consultant Anaesthetist. The Registrant’s role as an ODP was to assist the Anaesthetist. He had not previously met the Registrant.
• Progress was slow and after the first case, it became apparent to Mr SS that they would have difficulty in completing their list. In between the first and second case, he left the theatre and asked the Deputy Theatre Manager for another pair of hands to help with the list.
• During the second or third case, the Registrant approached Mr SS, who was operating at the time, and asked whether he had asked for her to be replaced. Mr SS told the Registrant that he had not asked for her to be replaced but had asked for another pair of hands to help with the list.
• Mr SS described the Registrant as appearing agitated and upset. She told Mr SS that she was leaving to which he responded by telling her not to leave until the end of the case. She, however, stated that she could leave and did in fact leave the operating theatre.
• Mr SS explained that the patient, at the time the Registrant left operating theatre, was under what was called a “twilight” anaesthetic. With this technique there is a fine balance between the patient being comfortable and asleep and their suffering a respiratory arrest (i.e. stopping breathing). The anaesthetist has to stay with the patient and monitor them constantly for the whole operation. Consequently, the ODP becomes very critical in this situation because if the anaesthetist needs anything, he is entirely dependent on the ODP for drugs/equipment, etc.
• The Registrant having left the operating theatre, another ODP was urgently required to replace her. As it happened, one of the theatre nurses, who had experience in anaesthetics, having de-scrubbed, was able to assist the anaesthetist.

24. In response to questions from Ms Evans, Mr SS did not depart from his evidence-in-chief in any material particular.
• He reiterated that when the Registrant announced that she was leaving, he told her “don’t do that, the patient is anaesthetised”.
• He stated that the nature of the anaesthetic was such that the anaesthetist was monitoring the patient second by second and needed to make adjustments every 15 seconds; in that situation the ODP’s role was critical.
• He acknowledged that the patient was not in fact put in any danger by the Registrant leaving because Ms GL was able to take her place; otherwise they would have had get someone else from outside.
• He stated that an anaesthetist always works together with an ODP in the theatre environment.
• He reiterated that it was unprofessional and unacceptable for the Registrant to leave the theatre as she did and that she thereby put the patient and the anaesthetist at risk. The Registrant had just said “I’m going” without arranging alternative cover. He said it was the equivalent of him saying during an operation that he was going home.
• He reiterated that the Registrant may have thought that he had asked for her to be replaced but that it was not his role to do so; he had simply asked for another pair of hands.
• He described the Registrant as having been confrontational/irritated with him and that “she went on and on while I was carrying out a procedure on a patient”.
25. In response to questions from the Panel, Mr SS stated that:
• He had not worked with the Registrant prior to 14 March 2022 and was not aware of having any interaction with her after the incident.
• He may have said to the Registrant prior to the incident that she needed to get off her backside because they were making very little progress with the list. He said that he was not rude or aggressive.
• He reiterated that he said in response to the Registrant announcing that she was leaving “you shoudn’t do that, you can’t do that”, she replied ‘Yes, I can” and stormed out. He understood that she was leaving and not coming back. He said that he had overall responsibility for the patient and he had expressly instructed the Registrant not to leave.
• He said that the Registrant had not discussed her intention to leave with anyone else in the theatre. He did not recall her saying that she was going to speak to the theatre manager. He was not aware of where the Registrant was going.
• He stated that the Registrant would not have been aware when leaving that Ms GL would take her place.
• He stated that he had no idea whether the Registrant had the keys to the controlled drug cabinet when she left.
Hearsay evidence in support of Particular 1
26. Ms GD gave evidence as to her investigation into the incident and her interviews with a number of potential witnesses to the events both inside and outside the operating theatre. Not having witnessed the incident herself, she was unable to give any direct evidence and her conclusions were matters of opinion and not material to the Panel’s determination.
27. The Panel considered the following hearsay evidence
Ms GL
28. As stated above, she was in the operating theatre on 14 March 2022 at the time of the incident and took over as the ODP following the Registrant’s departure. On 16 March 2022, she made a handwritten note, stating that there was an altercation between the Registrant and Mr SS at the operating table. The Registrant said that she was leaving and went into the anaesthetic room, where Ms GL followed her. As Ms GL was running the list she said to the Registrant “you cannot leave you have a sedated patient on the table, (the Registrant) replied I can and I will and she left”.
29. When interviewed by Ms GD on 20 May 2022, Ms GL gave a more detailed account but consistent account of the incident.
AP
30. He was interviewed by Ms GD on 20 May 2022. He was participating as a scrub nurse in the operating theatre at the time of the incident. He described the Registrant confronting Mr SS and that she then disappeared and did not return.
KS
31. He was interviewed by Ms GD on 14 April 2022. He was part of the scrub nurse team in the operating theatre at the time of the incident. He stated that the Registrant had “barged in” when a patient was already on the table. She confronted Mr SS about his having asked for another ODP and announced that she was leaving. Ms GL told the Registrant that she could not leave, to which the Registrant replied “Yes, I can” and stormed off.
Dr AP
32. He was interviewed by Ms GD on 29 April 2022. He had been the Consultant Anaesthetist in the operating theatre at the time of the incident on 14 March 2022. He confirmed that the patient in question was a high risk ASA 3 patient who was on the operating table under deep sedation. Half-way through the procedure, the Registrant came suddenly into the theatre and spoke directly to Mr SS saying “I have been told you are not happy with me, what’s the problem”. Her tone was aggressive and rude. Mr SS answered politely that he was not happy as the list was a busy one and felt that the Registrant could use some help to make the list flow more efficiently. The Registrant took offence at this, walked out of the theatre and did not return. Dr AP stated that this was a severe safety breach as she left him unsupported with an ASA 3 patient on the table.
The Registrant’s account
33. The Registrant was interviewed by Ms GD on 20 April 2022. She admitted leaving the operating theatre on 14 March 2022. She explained that Mr SS had complained about her and said that he did not want her in the operating theatre because she was too slow. She told Mr SS “Okay, I’ll go and find a replacement, go to Catherine and find a replacement. I’ll go now and do it.” She left the operating theatre to explain what had happened to Catherine, who advised her to go to the anaesthetic room to calm down. She then heard Ms Davis shouting to someone that the Registrant had abandoned her patient and was going home. She admitted having left the theatre with the keys to the controlled drugs cupboard and stated that she handed them over to Ms GL in the anaesthetic room after they had carried out a drugs check together. She denied having abandoned the patient and said that everyone knew where she was. She denied that she had put the patient at risk by leaving the operating theatre. She said that Mr SS knew where she was going and that in the sedation policy it stated that the consultant and anaesthetists were responsible for the patient, not the ODP. She said that she did not think that the patient had even been given any sedation at the time because they had not started surgery. She admitted being aware that the patient was high risk.
The Panel’s decision on Particular 1
Particular 1
On 14 March 2022 you left the operating theatre whilst Service User A was under sedation:
a. Without advising the anaesthetist or other any other colleague where you were going and/or when you would return, against the express instruction of the consultant surgeon. Proved

b. With the controlled drug cabinet keys. Proved

34. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so that the Particulars of the Allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.
35. The Panel drew no adverse inference against the Registrant from her non-attendance.
36. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the need to treat the hearsay evidence with circumspection and had regard to the considerations set out in section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 in deciding what weight, if any, to attach to that evidence.
37. The Panel found the evidence of Mr SS as to what occurred on 14 March 2022 to be consistent and credible. His oral evidence did not depart in any material particular from the written statement which he provided to Ms GD dated 20 May 2022 nor his witness statement dated 13 November 2023. The Panel noted that he had not met the Registrant prior to 14 March 2022 nor after the incident and showed no animus towards the Registrant. His evidence was even-handed.
38. The Panel noted that the accounts of the other members of the operating team as recorded by Ms GD were consistent in material respects with one another and with Mr SS. In particular:
• The Registrant confronted Mr SS whilst he was at the operating table, following which she announced that she was leaving.
• She was told not to leave until the case had been completed but stated that she could and would leave.
• She walked out of the operating theatre when the patient was lying on the operating table and anaesthetised.
• The patient was a high risk patient.
• The Registrant did not say where she was going or when she would return.
39. The Panel noted that none of Mr SS’s colleagues stated that they had heard him tell the Registrant not to leave but recollected Ms GL doing so. They were not, however, asked about this when interviewed by Ms GD. The Panel accepted Mr SS’s evidence that he did expressly instruct the Registrant not to leave.
40. Where the Registrant’s account to Ms GD differed from that of Mr SS, the Panel preferred Mr SS’s evidence. In particular, the Panel found that the Registrant did not tell Mr SS or anyone else in the operating theatre where she was going or when she would return and she left contrary to the express instruction of Mr SS not to leave.
41. The Registrant admitted to Ms GD that she had left the operating theatre with the keys to the controlled drugs cabinet and this was confirmed by the hearsay evidence of Ms GL.
42. Accordingly, Particulars 1a and 1b of the Allegation are proved.

The evidence in relation to Particular 2
43. The only evidence in support of Particular 2 was that of DM, referred to in Particular 2 as Colleague K. Ms DM stated as follows:
44. She was the Theatre Team Leader at the Hospital at the relevant time. It was her responsibility to ensure that her team was prepared for each patient listed for surgery. The Registrant, in her role as an ODP, was a member of the team. Prior to the incident on 8 February 2022, they had worked together on a number of occasions.
45. On 8 February 2022, the Registrant started at 7.30 am and was with her fellow ODP. Ms DM understood that they were doing controlled drugs checks. Ms DM then conducted the team brief prior to starting the list. The Registrant confirmed that she was ready to send for the first patient. A minute or so later, the Registrant told the team that she was not ready to send for the patient. When asked by Ms DM why she was not ready, the Registrant replied that she had not checked the drugs. When asked why she had not checked the drugs, the Registrant replied that she did not want to check them with her colleague. Ms DM stated that she then had a heated exchange with the Registrant who pointed her finger at her, screamed and shouted at her, saying that Ms DM was responsible for checking the drugs with her and that she did not want to check the drugs with her ODP colleague.
46. The Deputy Theatre Manager, KK, then came into the theatre and Ms DM explained the issue. Ms KK confirmed to the Registrant that it was her job to check the drugs with her ODP colleague and asked her why she had not done so. The Registrant continued screaming at Ms DM “It is your job to do the drugs check with me”.
47. Ms DM then went to fetch Mr Parfitt and asked him to help the Registrant check the controlled drugs. The Registrant reacted by shouting “No, I am not checking the drugs with a random person” and repeated that it was Ms DM’s job to do the drug checks with her.
48. Ms DM said that she was very anxious and unsettled by the Registrant’s behaviour towards her and completed a grievance form shortly after the incident, with a view to preventing such an incident happening again.
49. She never received a written response to her grievance and in due course was informed that the Registrant was no longer working at the Hospital.
50. In response to questions from the Panel, Ms DM gave the following additional evidence:
• She referred to the Standard Operating Procedure by way of confirmation that the controlled drugs should be checked by two registered practitioners.
• There was no requirement for Ms DM, as Team Leader, to be involved in checking the drugs.
• She could not understand why the Registrant was so insistent on Ms DM checking the drugs. The Registrant had on previous occasions checked the drugs with other registered members of the team, including Mr Parfitt.
• She stated that the incident had left her feeling upset, anxious, sad and unsafe. She had never been verbally attacked in that way before and described the Registrant screaming and pointing her finger at her face.
• She did not have any further interactions with the Registrant and did not work with her again.
• She confirmed that she had previously found the Registrant difficult to work with.
• She was not aware of any reasonable adjustments made to accommodate any disability from which the Registrant might have been suffering.
• She stated her impression that the Registrant seemed quite isolated and that she, Ms DM, had tried to make the Registrant feel comfortable as part of the team. She said that they had shared stories about their holidays and the Registrant had talked to her about her daughter.
The Panel’s decision on Particular 2
On 08 February 2022, you pointed your finger and/or shouted at Colleague K whilst stating:
a. I do not want to check drugs with a random ODP”, or words to that effect. Proved
b. “it’s your job to do drug checks with me”, or words to that effect. Proved
51. The Panel found the evidence of Ms DM to be credible. The Panel noted that she had made her complaint through the grievance procedure within a week of the incident taking place and that her account at that time was consistent with her later witness statement and her oral evidence. The Panel bore in mind that Ms DM had raised a grievance towards the Registrant and there could therefore be said to be some bad feeling on the part of Ms DM towards the Registrant. However, the Panel noted that there was no outstanding action or complaint by Ms DM against the Registrant. Furthermore, the Panel found Ms DM’s evidence to be balanced and not unsympathetic towards the Registrant, albeit that she found her difficult to work with.
52. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not responded to Particular 2 and had not provided any alternative account of the alleged incident.
53. The Panel found Particular 2a and 2b proved.
Decision on misconduct
54. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, or any of them, amounted to misconduct, as alleged in Particular 3 of the Allegation.
55. The Panel carefully considered the written submissions of Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
56. The Panel was mindful that this was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.
57. The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 as:

“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a (medical) practitioner in the particular circumstances”.
58. In relation to Particular 1a and 1b, the Panel considered that the Registrant‘s conduct was in breach of standards 2.5, 6.1, 6.2 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016).

59. The Registrant caused a disruption in the operating theatre at a critical moment, when a high-risk patient was on the operating table and under sedation. Given the patient was an ASA 3 patient and under ‘twilight’ sedation, as an experienced ODP, the Registrant must have realised how important her role was in supporting the Anaesthetist. By not telling her colleagues in the operating theatre where she was going nor when she would return, the team were without the ODP. This resulted in the team having to quickly reorganise in order to cover her absence. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrants conduct was a clear breach of standard 2.5 of the Code, which states: “You must work in partnership with colleagues …… where appropriate for the benefit of service users and carers”.

60. The Panel accepted the evidence of Mr SS, as supported by the other members of the surgical team in their interviews with Ms GD, that by leaving the operating theatre in the manner in which she did, the Registrant potentially put at risk the safety of the patient and potentially put her colleagues at risk in the performance of their duties. The Registrant was therefore in breach of standards 6.1 of the Code which states that “You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible” and 6.2 which states that “You must not do anything …..which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk”.

61. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct as described above was likely to undermine the public’s trust in confidence in her and her profession and was in breach of standard 9.1 of the Code which states that “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

62. With regard to Particular 2, the Panel found the Registrant’s conduct to have been in breach of standards 2.5 and 9.1 of the Code. By shouting at Colleague K, the Theatre Lead and by refusing to check the drugs with her ODP colleague, the Registrant was not working in partnership for the benefit of service users or her colleagues.

63. In summary, the Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 1 and 2 fell seriously short of the standards to be expected of her in the circumstances and thereby constituted misconduct.

Decision on impairment

64. The Panel had regard to the written submissions of Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC.

65. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is “Impaired” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

66. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 1 had resulted in an unwarranted risk of harm to Service User A. In relation to Particulars 1 and 2 the Panel determined that her conduct had breached fundamental tenets of the profession (working effectively with colleagues and providing safe care for patients) and that she had brought the profession into disrepute.

67. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as an Operating Department Practitioner, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour on the part of registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

68. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided no evidence of remorse, insight or remediation. The Panel had no information about any work that she had carried out since she had terminated her employment with the Hospital. She had, however, notified the HCPC that she had ceased to practise as an ODP and was currently resident overseas.

69. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct was potentially remediable. However, in the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, the Panel concluded that there was a likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct with the consequent risk of significant harm to the public, including patients, service users and colleagues.

70. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired having regard to the “personal” component.

71. With regard to the “public” component, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s unrestricted practice would constitute a risk to members of the public. The Panel determined that a finding of current impairment on public interest grounds was required to uphold proper standards of professional conduct and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator.

72. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on public interest grounds.

Decision on Sanction

73. The Panel had regard to the submissions of Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC.

74. The Panel received no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

75. The Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Guidance (SG) and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

76. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors in this case:

• the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation on the part of the Registrant;

• the fact that there were two instances within a 5-week period of confrontational and unacceptable behaviour towards professional colleagues in the workplace;

• her failure in both instances to work effectively with professional colleagues for the benefit of service users;

• the risk of harm to the Service User A and colleagues in respect of Particular 1.

77. The Panel was unable, in the absence of any evidence or information from the Registrant, to discern any mitigating factors. In the absence of any supporting medical evidence, the Panel was unable to regard any such potential welfare issues as mitigating the Registrant’s misconduct. However, evidence that any such factors had been present at the relevant time and had been subsequently resolved or addressed might be relevant to the Registrant’s fitness to practise in the future.

78. The Registrant’s misconduct was too serious for the Panel to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order.

79. The Panel was unable to formulate any conditions of practice in the circumstances. In reaching this decision, the Panel took into account the nature of the misconduct, the fact that the Registrant had disengaged from the proceedings (since 11 November 2025), and her notification to the HCPC that she had left the profession and was now resident overseas.

80. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months.
The Panel took into account the factors in the SG which pointed towards a suspension order. It noted that the Registrant lacked insight, and that it had found that her conduct was likely to be repeated. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was potentially remediable even though she had not provided any evidence of this to date. Although the Panel found that the Registrant had failed to work in partnership with colleagues, it did not consider her misconduct to be at the more serious end of the scale of this type of behaviour. The Panel noted that there was no evidence that her misconduct involved bullying, harassment or victimisation. Additionally, the Panel did not consider that two instances in a five-week period amounted to persistent behaviour.

81. The Panel went on to consider whether to impose a Striking Off Order. It noted that a number of the factors in the SG relevant to the imposition of such an order were present in this case, including that the Registrant lacked insight and was unwilling to resolve matters. However, taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s misconduct was potentially remediable and not so serious as to be incompatible with remaining on the register.

82. The Panel determined a 6-month Suspension Order would protect the public and mark the gravity of the misconduct. The Panel considered that this was the minimum period required to allow the Registrant sufficient opportunity to reflect on her misconduct, gain insight, and take remedial steps against any future repetition. The Panel also determined that 6 months was the appropriate period to mark the unacceptability of her misconduct and ensure public confidence in the profession was upheld and standards maintained. It considered that a longer period of suspension would be disproportionate.

83. This order will be reviewed by a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee before its expiry. At such a review, the panel is likely to be assisted by:

• the Registrant’s engagement with the HCPC and attendance at the hearing;

• evidence of reflection and insight;

• any medical evidence which might be relevant to her past misconduct and its avoidance in the future;
• any testimonials as to her conduct whether inside or outside work since she left her employment at the Spire Bushey Hospital in August 2022;

• evidence of keeping up to date with her practice; and

• any evidence of remediation, including training relating to anger management and avoiding conflict in the workplace.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mrs Amanda Maison for a period of 6 months.

Interim Order

Application

Ms Evans made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months on the grounds that such an order was necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest.

The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Interim Orders” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Decision

For the reasons provided in its substantive decision, the Panel determined that an Interim Order is necessary to protect members of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. 

The Panel first considered whether to impose an interim condition of practice order and determined, for the same reasons provided in its substantive decision, it would not be appropriate. The Panel considered that an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months should be imposed. This period is necessary to allow for any appeal made by the Registrant against the Panel’s decision.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Amanda Maison