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 2 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 the absence of the Registrant

2. The HCPC applied to have this matter heard in the Registrant’s absence as permitted under Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules. Under that provision a panel has the discretion to proceed with a hearing in the absence of a registrant if satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the registrant and that the HCPC has made reasonable and sufficient efforts to contact the registrant about today’s hearing and encouraged their attendance.

3. In making this decision, it was submitted that the Panel must consider all the circumstances of the case, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public. The Panel was directed to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant which encapsulates the principles established in the leading cases of R v Hayward and R v Jones.

4. The HCPC has made significant efforts to encourage the Registrant to engage with these proceedings since the substantive hearing. In addition, the Hearings Officer wrote to the Registrant twice on the 8 and 11 June 2026 to check whether the Registrant would be attending. 

5. On 19 May 2026, the Registrant responded acknowledging the “upcoming review of the Suspension Order which is taking place on 23 June 2026” and provided an update on her current circumstances, including a statement that she retired from her role as an ODP in November 2024 and no longer resides in England.  The Registrant also wrote to the HCPC again on 12 June 2026 and 17 June 2026 with submissions for the Panel. It is therefore submitted that the Registrant is fully aware of today’s hearing and has voluntarily absented herself and waived her right to attend. 

6. The Registrant has not provided any reason for her non-attendance; there has been no request for an adjournment; and no suggestion from the Registrant that she could attend on an alternative date. It was submitted that an adjournment would therefore serve no useful purpose and would simply prolong matters unnecessarily, which would not be in the public interest. 

7. The Panel should also consider that this is a statutory review that must take place before the expiry date of the current order which is 9 August 2026. If the Order is not reviewed by that date, it will lapse and the Registrant would be free to return to practise unrestricted.

8. The HCPC emphasised that, as established in GMC v Adeogba, medical practitioners have a duty to engage with their regulator and should not be able to frustrate the process through their failure to engage. Adeogba also established that where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right it should proceed.

9. It was submitted that the public interest overwhelmingly favours proceeding with the substantive review as scheduled in the Registrant’s absence and that it would be fair and proportionate for the Panel to do so. 

10. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted and accepted the submissions made by the HCPC. The Panel also considered the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note.

11. The Panel accepted that the Registrant was disadvantaged by a decision not to attend, however, it noted that the Registrant had prepared documentation to be presented to the Panel in full knowledge that these were to be considered on her absence. The Panel therefore came to the conclusion that the Registrant had made an informed decision not to attend today’s hearing. 

12. There was nothing to indicate that the Registrant would be more willing to attend on another day and so the Panel considered that in all the circumstances nothing would be gained from an adjournment. There was public interest in this matter proceeding today and in the Panel’s view that public interest outweighed any prejudice caused to the Registrant and so it concluded that it would proceed in her absence. 

Privacy application

13. The HCPC applied for the Panel to use its discretion to hear any health or personal matters relating to the Registrant in private today.  Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, provides that whilst most FTP proceedings should be held in public, the Panel has the discretion to exclude the press or the public from all or part of a hearing in appropriate cases, where it is in the interests of justice to do so; or where it is done to protect the private life of the Registrant or any other relevant party.

14. Within the documentation before the Panel there are references to the Registrant’s health and personal matters. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to note that the Final Hearing was conducted in private. She confirmed that she would not be making reference to those matters during her submissions. 

15. The HCPC’s submission was therefore limited to hearing any reference by way of further questioning of the issues set out in the Registrant’s documentation in private session and for any reference in any decision to recorded within a private edition.  

16. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the relevant HCPTS guidance on this issue. The Panel concluded that should it be found necessary to reference matters of a private nature it would be appropriate to do so in private. 

Background

17. 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”).

18. The Registrant commenced employment at the Hospital on 1 December 2020 and ended her employment on 18 August 2022.

19. On 9 September 2022, the Director of Clinical Services at Spire Healthcare PLC referred the Registrant to the HCPC, raising the following concerns:

a. 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,

b. 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.

20. That referral resulted in a Final Hearing that took place between 6 and 12 January 2026, when the Registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired by reason of misconduct and a period of suspension was imposed for a period of six months. 

Evidence and Registrant’s documentation

21. The Panel had been provided with a main bundle consisting of 43 pages; an addendum bundle of 5 pages; and, a service bundle of 9 pages. 

22. Within the main bundle was a copy of the final hearing decision. Also within that bundle was a copy of the email of 19 May 2026 in which the Registrant set out her current circumstances:

Thank you for your email dated 19 May 2026 regarding the upcoming review of the Suspension Order, which is taking place on 23 June 2026.

I maintained my Continuing Professional Competency (CPC) requirements, [redacted]. 

I retired from my role as an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) in November 2024 and no longer reside in England. I do not intend to return, nor do I plan to practise as an ODP again.

I am sincerely sorry regarding the alleged incident said to have taken place at Spire Healthcare Bushey. However, their account of events differs significantly from my own. I felt unable to challenge the situation effectively due to the size and influence of the organisation. In my view, following the bullying issues I experienced at Bedford Hospital becoming known, Spire Healthcare sought a reason to terminate my contract.

Despite these circumstances, I greatly enjoyed my career as an ODP and took pride in being dedicated and highly competent in my profession. Sadly, the situation at Spire Healthcare made it impossible for me to continue in the role, which I found deeply upsetting as I valued my career and always tried to provide the highest standard of care to patients. Following my retirement, I decided to move abroad and begin a new chapter in my life.

I regret that my career ended in this manner after many years of service in healthcare. I always aimed to act professionally and in the best interests of both patients and colleagues throughout my career. Although I have now retired and moved on from the profession, I remain proud of the work I carried out as an ODP and the contribution I made during my years of practice.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my statement.

23. Within the addendum bundle the Registrant had provided the Panel with a reflective piece of writing which was noted but which is not set out in full in this decision.  

HCPC submissions

24. The HCPC’s position was that the Registrant’s FTP remains impaired and that a short extension of the Suspension Order for a further period of up to six months may be the most appropriate order. 

25. The Registrant has submitted three submissions for the Panel’s consideration, all three submitted by email on 9 May 2026; 12 June 2026; and 17 June 2026.  

26. In the Registrant’s statement of 17 June 2026, she describes the personal and professional pressures that impacted on her at the time of the concerns. She explains that whilst she does not seek to excuse her actions, she believes that it is important to provide the Panel with the context in which the events occurred. The Registrant expresses regret for the circumstances that led to these proceedings and acknowledges that there are things she could have done differently.  She explains her absence from the substantive hearing which she says was because she had recently relocated to the United States where she had started a new position and could not take the time off from work.  She says that she regrets not participating which she appreciates may have been interpreted as a lack of engagement, which was not her intention. 

27. It is acknowledged by the HCPC that in the Registrant’s statement she has demonstrated some evidence of regret for her actions. 

28. The Registrant has failed to comply with the recommendations set out within the Final Hearing Panel’s determination,  which were:

• 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 [redacted] and avoiding conflict in the workplace.

29. The incidents which led to the finding of impairment were behavioural, rather than clinical competency issues. In her email of 12 June 2026, the Registrant states that she has attended a [redacted] course, however no evidence of this has been provided to the Panel. 

30. The Panel was invited to note the absence of testimonial evidence. The Registrant states that she continued to practise as an ODP for approximately two years, following the concerns about her conduct, during which time she practised without any complaints or disciplinary matters arising. However, there is no evidence of this.

31. The Registrant has also stated that she regularly completed mandatory training to “maintain and enhance” her professional knowledge and skills. However, there is no corroborating evidence of this.

32. The Registrant has further stated that she is now working for a biomedical research company in the United States and is undertaking training to become a Certified Laboratory Animal Technician. She has not provided the Panel with any testimonial or other evidence from her new role. 

33. Whilst the HCPC acknowledged that the Registrant has taken some steps towards developing insight, it is submitted that this remains incomplete. In the absence of evidence of [redacted], testimonial evidence of her conduct since leaving her employment with Spire Bushey Hospital in August 2022, and corroborating evidence of the mandatory training she describes, the Panel cannot be satisfied that the concerns which gave rise to the original finding of impairment have been sufficiently addressed. 

34. The Presenting Officer submitted the previous panel found that the Registrant’s conduct had breached fundamental tenets of the profession, including the obligation to work safely and effectively with colleagues and to safeguard patients, and that her conduct had brought the profession into disrepute. She submitted that the Panel may wish to note that the Registrant has not admitted the findings of the substantive panel and there is no indication that she accepts that her fitness to practice was or remains impaired. 

35. Given that the evidence of remediation remains limited, she submitted that there continues to be a risk of repetition. Accordingly, it is the HCPC’s position that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains impaired on both the personal and public components. 

36. Turning to the issue of sanction, she submitted that any further restriction is entirely a matter for the Panel to decide, however the HCPC respectfully refers the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (March 2026 edition). 

37. The HCPC referred the Panel to the findings and reasons for sanction made by the Final Hearing Panel, which concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a suspension order and it is for the same reasons that this remains the case. 

38. It was further submitted by the HCPC that a Striking Off Order may still be disproportionate at this stage. This is the first review of the Suspension Order. The original suspension was relatively short, the matters were considered capable of remediation, and the registrant has now engaged with the process and demonstrated developing insight, albeit limited. 

39. In the HCPC’s view the appropriate and proportionate sanction would be a further Suspension Order for no longer than six months.  This would afford the registrant a further opportunity to engage, provide material in support her statement, address any recommendations not already dealt with, and comply with any new recommendations the Panel may wish to make. 

40. The HCPC suggested that the Panel may wish to reflect in its decision that should the Registrant fail to engage further, or to provide sufficient evidence of remediation, a Striking-Off Order is likely to fall within the Panel’s consideration at the next review. 

Decision    

41. The Panel sought and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel noted the submissions made by the HCPC’s Presenting Officer and the contents of the Registrant’s statements contained within her three emails to the HCPC. The Panel also took into account the terms of the guidance issued by the HCPTS relating to Fitness to Practise Impairment and the Sanctions Policy.

42. The Panel as directed started by considering the personal component of impairment. The Panel noted that the Registrant has had nearly four years to reflect and consider the issues raised by her conduct. Whilst the Registrant had taken the opportunity to identify the contextual circumstances that influenced her conduct for this Panel, there was nothing that demonstrated a full acceptance of the Final Hearing Panel’s findings. 

43. There had been limited engagement with the recommendations made by the Final Hearing Panel. The HCPC had identified the limited nature of those efforts.  Whilst there are statements and assertions of courses undertaken, there is no documentary supporting evidence. Whilst the Panel accepted that at a distance it may be difficult to obtain testimonials from those she worked with from September 2022 to November 2024 it would not be impossible to do so. It noted the failure to provide information from her current employer. There is nothing to support her assertion that she has successfully started a new career and is working without cause for concern. 

44. The Panel has been provided with a reflective piece of writing that demonstrates a degree of insight into her former conduct, but this is clearly at a very early stage. Within an operating department environment service users are already stressed and fearful therefore any conduct that may heighten their concerns is unacceptable. Those under sedation are particularly placed at risk by any interruption to their procedure. The failure by the Registrant to identify the impact of her conduct upon fellow professionals and the potential impact on vulnerable service users was therefore of particular note. This failure to identify the potential outcome of her actions for others, and as a result a lack of meaningful reflection on the wider impact of her conduct, was of real concern to the Panel. 

45. In the absence of any evidence of true reflection; testimonials; and documentation to support her continuing professional training, and an apology, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant still poses a risk to the public and there is a likelihood of repetition of that conduct. The Panel therefore makes a finding of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise on the personal component. 

46. In relation to the public component the Panel considers that for the same reasons members of the public would be rightly concerned about the Registrant’s actions and lack of understanding of the impact of her previous conduct. Member of the public should be able to have confidence in the professionalism of those who are tending them within a clinical environment, particularly during a surgical procedure. Members of the public would expect a finding of impairment in such circumstances and so the Panel makes a finding on the public component. 

47. Having found that there is current impairment on both the personal and public components, the Panel moved on to consider what was the most appropriate and proportionate restriction. The Panel discounted making no order and imposing a caution order as neither would provide any level of public protection. The Panel discounted imposing a Conditions of Practice Order as the Registrant is not in the country and there is no identified employer. 

48. When considering an extension of the Suspension Order, the Panel looked at whether a Striking-Off Order was now the appropriate and proportionate measure and came to the conclusion that it was not. There had been continued engagement by the Registrant with the HCPC and some attempts, albeit very limited in nature, to fulfil the Final Hearing Panel’s recommendations. The level of engagement was such that the Panel considered that it had demonstrated sufficient evidence to make such a measure as permanent removal from the Register disproportionate at this time. 

49. The Panel has therefore concluded that a further period of suspension would be the appropriate and proportionate measure at this time. The Panel has accepted that a short period to undertake reflection and provide documentary evidence is appropriate. The period of six months, as suggested by the HCPC is, in the Panel’s view, sufficient time to amass the evidence and undertake further thought and reflection. It also provides the Registrant with a period to consider carefully her stated position of not returning to the ODP profession. 

50. In this regard the Panel noted that until the Registrant has fully admitted and accepted her conduct and been able to demonstrate remorse, regret and apology there is little option for her to leave the profession. If she were able to do that, she may become eligible to seek a Voluntary Removal Agreement. This would remove her from the Register without a Striking-Off Order. It is a matter that she may wish to research via the members’ portion of the HCPC website dedicated to those involved in fitness to practise proceedings. 

51. The Panel stresses that if by the time this further period of suspension comes to an end there is no demonstration of meaningful remediation then a reviewing panel will consider very carefully whether the option of a Striking-Off Order should be made. The Registrant is therefore urged to endeavour to provide the information set out below. Whilst this Panel cannot bind a future reviewing panel it is suggested that at its review the following may be helpful: 

a. the Panel supports the Registrant attending the review if she can, although it appreciates the logistical difficulties of that. In her absence from such a hearing, then a demonstration of full engagement by her with the HCPC process; and,

b. evidence of meaningful reflection and insight; and

c. any medical evidence which might be relevant to her past misconduct and its avoidance in the future; and

d. any testimonials as to her conduct whether inside or outside work since she left her employment at the Spire Bushey Hospital in August 2022 including her current employment and undertaking of further training in a new role; and

e. evidence of keeping up to date with her practice; and

f. any evidence of personal remediation, including documentation to evidence training [redacted] and avoiding conflict in the workplace.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mrs Amanda Maison for a further period of 6 months, from the date the current suspension order expires, namely from 09 August 2026.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Amanda Maison