Nadine Field

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.          The Panel had information before it that the Notice of today’s hearing was sent to the Registrant’s email address on the HCPC register by email on 20 January 2026. The Panel also had sight of an amended Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant by email on 9 June 2026 to her email address on the HCPC Register, which informed her that some of the dates of this hearing, listed to take place in July 2026, had been amended.

2.          The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Service of Documents” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3.          The Panel was satisfied that good service had been effected in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Procedure Rules 2003 (the 2003 Rules).

 

Proceeding in Absence

4.     Mr Cassels, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Mr Cassels highlighted to the Panel an email from the Registrant to the solicitors acting for the HCPC dated 17 April 2026 which stated:

          “Just to let you know after much consideration, i will not be attending any further meetings with the HCPC tribunal panel…I have been fully retired for two years now. I wish to be removed from the HCPC register.”

5.     Mr Cassels submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself and that an adjournment of the hearing would serve no useful purpose. Mr Cassels submitted that there would be limited risk of reaching an improper conclusion as a result of the Registrant’s absence considering that she had made responses in writing to most of the allegations. Mr Cassels submitted that there was no good reason not to proceed.

6.     The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered the Registrant’s email dated 17 April 2026 in which she, the Panel concluded, had clearly expressed that she did not wish to attend any hearing. The Panel considered that she had voluntarily waived her right to attend. The Panel took into account the potential prejudice in proceeding in her absence but that the prejudice was mitigated somewhat by the Registrant’s responses to some of the allegations which were in the HCPC bundle, which enables the panel to understand the Registrant’s position. There was no suggestion that the Registrant wished for the hearing to be adjourned. There are witnesses due to give evidence in this case, and the Panel was mindful of the age of some of the allegations and the impact of the passage of time on witnesses’ memories. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice, and fairness to proceed today.

Correcting an irregularity which occurred in the previous joinder of FTP83289 and FTP84263, as well as an application by the HCPC  to join a third Allegation under case umber FTP92389

7.     Mr Cassels, referring to his written case summary,  raised a legal issue with respect to the previous joinder of FTP83289 and FTP84263. He informed the Panel that the original Allegation with the case number FTP83289 had originally been referred to the Health Committee (HC) by the Investigating Committee (IC) on 26 May 2022. The separate Allegation with case number FTP84263 had been referred by the IC on 28 July 2022 and referred to the Conduct and Conduct Committee (CCC)

8.     At a Preliminary hearing on 8 January 2024, the CCC heard an application to join FTP83289 and FTP84263 and granted that application. Mr Cassels submitted a procedural irregularity had thereby occurred because the CCC had no power to consider FTP83289 without the matter first being transferred from the   HC to the CCC. Mr Cassels submitted that as a matter of common sense, a principle underpinning regulatory law, as expressed in case law, it would be appropriate for this Panel  to do what the CCC could have done on 8 January 2024, namely first constitute itself as a Panel of the HC in order to consider transfer to the CCC, and then, reconstitute itself as a Panel CCC to direct joinder.  Mr Cassels told the Panel that the Registrant had consented to the joinder application in an email dated 16 December 2023. There was no injustice and it was appropriate to hear the two Allegations together. It would prevent the HCPC witnesses to have to attend to give evidence at more than one hearing, it would provide finality to the Registrant, and it was in the public interest to ensure expedition.

9.     Mr Cassels also applied for the Panel as the CCC, to join a third Allegation under case number FTP 92839. His arguments for doing so were similar to his initial arguments for joining cases FTP FTP83289 and FTP84263. In addition, Allegation FTP92839 raised issues with alcohol and the Registrant’s professionalism. Such issues also appeared in FTP83289. Further, there was nothing to suggest that if all three Allegations were joined that this would cause prejudice to the Registrant as a result of the Panel being aware of material across the Allegations which may cause them to be biased.

10.   The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who stated that there was no legal bar to the Panel adopting the process suggested by Mr Cassels in regularising the joinder decision taken by the CCC at the Preliminary hearing on 8 January 2024. The Legal Assessor highlighted factors to take into account when considering joinder.  In addition, the Panel took into account Rule 4 of the 2003 (referral to the HC) and the corresponding rule 4 (referral to the CCC) in the HCPC (Health Committee) (Procedure Rules) 2003, as well as the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Joinder” and “Mixed Allegations”

11.   The Panel decided that a common sense approach would be for it to constitute itself as the HC and direct that the Allegation under case number FTP83289 be transferred to the CCC. As part of this common sense approach, the Panel then reconstituted itself as the CCC to consider the issue of joinder.

12.   The Panel took into account that the Registrant had consented to the original joinder application regarding FTP83289 and FTP84263 in an email dated 16 December 2023. It was clear to the Panel that there could be no prejudice to the Registrant, and that it would be just and fair to hear those Allegations in the same hearing in the interests of expedition, and to prevent witnesses having to return for a second hearing. In addition, the Panel decided that it was also just and fair to join Allegation FTP83289. The allegation of being under the influence of alcohol during an appointment with Service User A (“SUA”), raised issues which were partly reflected in the allegation in  FTP83289 of commencing a shift while under the influence of alcohol. There was nothing that the Panel could identify which would prejudice the Registrant in agreeing to the joinder applications and the Panel could not identify that it may become biased by so doing. The Panel also concluded that it would be fair to allow joinder to the Registrant to provide finality for her as well as expedition in the regularity process which was in both parties’ interests as well as the public interest. Further, it is better for a single Panel to have all matters before it if the stage of Impairment and/ or Sanction is reached so that all issues can be considered when making those decisions.

13.   The Panel did carefully consider whether some or all of the Allegations would be better dealt with by the Health Committee on the basis of the references to health, The evidence about the Registrant’s health is limited and also not up to date. The Registrant is not attending to provide further evidence of any health issues, and in addition, it appeared to the Panel that several allegations on the face of it were not, caused by health issues. The Panel therefore decided that no referral to the HC should take place and that it was more appropriate for this Panel to deal with all Allegations.

14.   The Panel therefore acceded to Mr Cassels’ applications and as a consequence, agreed to join all three separate Allegations to be heard in this hearing before this Panel sitting as the CCC.

Background

15.     The Registrant is a Practitioner Psychologist registered with the HCPC.

16.     The Registrant had previously worked as a senior psychologist, employed by the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) at Queensway Clinic in Milton Keynes, which offered mental health services to people with complex mental health issues living within the community (the Service).

17.     During her employment at the Service, a number of concerns arose with regard to the Registrant’s practice, and referrals were made to the HCPC. The HCPC investigated the concerns, and brings a number of allegations to be heard at this final hearing.

Decision on Facts

18.     The Panel had before it the following documents:

i.        two service bundles;

ii.        HCPC final hearing bundle, which included a number of documents from the Registrant including written responses to allegations;

iii.       previous decision of the CCC at a preliminary hearing dated 8 January 2024

19.     The Panel are aware that the burden of proof rested solely on the HCPC in respect of each allegation, and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Panel drew no adverse inference from the Registrant’s absence.

20      The Panel heard the following live witnesses:

          i.        SC, a former colleague of the Registrant’s at the Service;

          ii.        SUA, the Registrant’s former patient.

21.     The Panel took into account the following written witness statements of the following witnesses:

          i.        HK, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, and Clinical Lead based at           the Queensway Clinic at the time of the incidents, and the           Registrant’s clinical supervisor.

          ii.        SA, Therapies Manager, formerly at the Queensway Clinic,           who became the Registrant’s line manager in January 2021.

22.     HK and SA were ready to give evidence. On being told by Mr Cassels that he had no questions for HK or SA, the Panel were invited to consider if they had any questions of HK and SA, otherwise Mr Cassels proposed to rely on their witness statements. The Panel confirmed that they did not have any questions for these witnesses. This decision was taken in light of a number of admissions the Registrant had made in her HCPC Response Pro Forma form.

Application  for part of the hearing to be in private

23.       Mr Cassels applied for any references made by SUA in her evidence to her health to be in private, in order to protect her private life.

24.   The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided to hear any matters of SUA’s health in private in order to protect her private life pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the 2003 Rules.

 

FTP 83289/ 83263

 

1. You did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users, in that:

25.   The Panel took into account the witness statement of HK which stated that as her clinical supervisor, she became aware of the Registrant’s record-keeping issues around late 2020 and that the Registrant had admitted that she was struggling to keep up with admin and record keeping.  HK’s evidence was that on 24 February 2021 she met with the Registrant to discuss administrative pressures, and what the Registrant should be doing. HK stated that the Registrant was struggling to adhere to the Service’s requirements and had told HK that “she found the admin side of her role overwhelming”. In his witness statement SA also stated that records are supposed to be updated within 24 hours of seeing the service user to ensure that any other members of staff who have contact with the service user are aware of what is happening. The Panel considered this evidence HK and SA relevant to all sub particulars of Particular 1.

 

a. You did not update Service User A’s notes between 2 December 2020 and 24 February 2021.

26.   In his witness statement, SA stated that at the end of 2020 HK reported to him that that the Registrant was not keeping her records up to date. It had been specifically identified that the Registrant had not updated Service User A’ s notes between 2 December 2020 and 24 February 2021.

27.   The Panel had before it SUA’s patient records which demonstrated that no records had been entered by the Registrant since 2 December 2020, with a medical secretary making an entry on 26 February 2021.

28.   The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted, on a general basis, that she “did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users” and accepted that for the period October 2020 to March 2021 her records during her NHS employment “was not fully or promptly completed”. In addition, she stated that during this period she struggled to keep on top of her workload, stating the following contributing factors: finding the administrative requirements on top of the magnitude of clients overwhelming, struggling with the new record keeping system, and personal difficulties.

29.   The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

 

b. You did not record in Service User B’s notes the content and aim of sessions between 6 October 2020 and 12 January 2021.

 

30.   In his witness statement, SA stated that at the end of 2020 HK reported to him that that the Registrant was not keeping her records up to date. It had been specifically identified that the Registrant had not recorded in Service User B’s (“SUB’s”) notes the content and aim of the sessions between 5 October 2020 and 12 January 2021.

23.       The Panel had before it SUB’s patient records for the duration referred to in the Particular which demonstrated that while there was factual information form the client included, there was no inclusion of what the Registrant’s proposed treatment plan was, what her clinical intentions were, or what the aim of sessions were.

 

24.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted, on a general basis, that she “did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users” and accepted that for the period October 2020 to March 2021 her records during her NHS employment “was not fully or promptly completed”. In addition, she stated that during this period she struggled to keep on top of her workload, stating the following contributing factors: finding the administrative requirements on top of the magnitude of clients overwhelming, struggling with the new record keeping system, and personal difficulties.

 

25.       The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

c. You did not update Service User C’s notes between 7 December 2020 and 24 February 2021.

26.       In his witness statement, SA stated that at the end of 2020 HK reported to him that that the Registrant was not keeping her records up to date. It had been specifically identified that the Registrant had not updated Service User C’s (“SUC’s”) notes between 7 December 2020 and 24 February 2021.

27.       The Panel had before it SUC’s patient records which demonstrated no notes made by the Registrant after 7 December 2020.

 

28.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted, on a general basis, that she “did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users” and accepted that for the period October 2020 to March 2021 her records during her NHS employment “was not fully or promptly completed”. In addition, she stated that during this period she struggled to keep on top of her workload, stating the following contributing factors: finding the administrative requirements on top of the magnitude of clients overwhelming, struggling with the new record keeping system, and personal difficulties.

 

 

29.       The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

 

d. You did not update Service User D’s notes with details of a patient consultation appointment held on 19 January 2021 until 9 June 2021.

30.       In his witness statement, SA stated at the end of 2020 HK reported to him that that the Registrant was not keeping her records up to date. It had been specifically identified that the Registrant had not updated Service User D’s (“SUD’s”) notes with details of a patient consultation appointment held on 19 January 2021, until 9 June 2021.

31.       The Panel had SUD’s patient records before it. On 21 December 2019 an administrative assistant had entered that a letter was to be sent to SUD on 21 December 2020 offering a telephone consultation appointment for 19 January 2021. The next entry in SUD’s patient records is an entry by the Registrant on 9 June 2021 which sets out the discussion between the Registrant and SUD.

32.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted, on a general basis, that she “did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users” and accepted that for the period October 2020 to March 2021 her records during her NHS employment “was not fully or promptly completed”. In addition, she stated that during this period she struggled to keep on top of her workload, stating the following contributing factors: finding the administrative requirements on top of the magnitude of clients overwhelming, struggling with the new record keeping system, and personal difficulties.

 

33.       The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

e. You did not update Service User E’s notes in a timely manner following sessions, in that:

i. Notes for a session on 14 October 2020 were completed on 2 November 2020

ii. Notes for a session on 21 October 2020 were completed on 17 November 2020

iii. Notes for a session on 26 October 2020 were completed on 3 February 2021

iv. Notes for a session on 9 December 2020 were completed on 15 March 2021

34.       In his witness statement, SA stated that the WS of SA stated that at the end of 2020 HK reported to him that that the Registrant was not keeping her records up to date. It had been specifically identified that the Registrant had not updated SUE’s notes in a timely manner in that:

i.        notes for a session on 14 October 2020 were not completed until 2 November 2020;

ii.        notes for a session on 21 October 2020 were not completed until 17 November 2020;

iii.       notes for a session 26 October 2020 were not completed until 3 February 2021;

iv.       notes for a session on 9 December 2020 were not completed until 15 March 2021.

35.       The Panel had before it SUE’s patient records before it which demonstrated each of the delayed notes as set out above.

36.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted, on a general basis, that she “did not maintain accurate and complete records for service users” and accepted that for the period October 2020 to March 2021 her records during her NHS employment “was not fully or promptly completed”. In addition, she stated that during this period she struggled to keep on top of her workload, stating the following contributing factors: finding the administrative requirements on top of the magnitude of clients overwhelming, struggling with the new record keeping system, and personal difficulties.

 

37.       The Panel therefore found Particular 1e(i)-(iv) proved.

 

2. On 15 March 2021, you commenced your shift while under the influence of alcohol.

 

38.       The Panel took into account the Witness statement of HK which stated that on 15 March 2021, as the Registrant left SA’s office after a meeting with him, HK noted the smell of alcohol. HK went into SA’s office and told him that the smell of alcohol was very strong. SA stated he hadn’t really noticed, but HK stated that they were wearing facemasks at the time.

 

39.       HK stated that she and SA spoke to the Registrant “immediately” and the Registrant was “very honest” about it, stating that she only ever drank before or after work, not whilst at work and explained that she had been struggling for around 3 months and had been going to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). HK states that SA sought guidance from the Senior Community Service Manager and HK and SA were advised to send the Registrant home.

 

40.       In his Witness Statement, SA stated that on 15 March 2021, following a meeting with the Registrant, HK stated to him that she could smell alcohol. They decided to speak to the Registrant who explained that she had had one glass of wine before work and was seeking the support of AA. They asked the Registrant to go home. SA met with the Registrant on 16 March 2021 who explained to him that she had been struggling with alcohol for around 3 months and had spoken to her (AA) sponsor the previous evening. SA ‘s evidence was that it was decided that the Registrant would be signed off work until she had met with Occupational Health (OH).

 

41.       The Panel had before it an email from HK to SA dated 24 March 2021 in which she set out her notes of their meeting with the Registrant on 15 March 2021.

 

42.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s Response Pro Forma in which she admitted that she consumed one alcoholic drink prior to commencing her shift on 15 March 2021 and admitted that she was under the influence of alcohol.

 

43.       The Panel carefully considered the phrase “under the influence of alcohol”. Firstly, this was not an allegation which required proof of a certain level of alcohol in the Registrant’s system. The Registrant admitted drinking one glass of wine prior to commencing her shift and the evidence of HK was that there was a “very strong” smell of alcohol around the Registrant. Taking into account the evidence the Panel accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol.

 

44.       The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

 

3.     In March or April 2021, you held sessions with two private patients and had contact with one NHS patient whilst signed off as unfit to work from your post with Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

 

45.       The Panel took into account the evidence of SA which was that during a conversation  with the Registrant, the Registrant stated that she met with two private clients whilst signed off from work, and that she had contact with an NHS patient during the same time whilst off work sick, which she agreed should not have happened. SA stated that the Registrant explained that she had done this to minimise the risk to the service user due to her decline in mental health.

 

46.       The Registrant in her written response pro forma stated that she had treated one private patient after three weeks of being off work, on 18 March 2021 via Zoom in order to complete his treatment. The Registrant also stated that the NHS patient she had contact with was a young mother whom the Registrant had been treating for trauma, and whose baby had tragically died suddenly from cot death and she felt it was ethical to treat her to minimise the patient’s risk.

 

47.       The Panel noted that there was no other documentary evidence in support of this Particular from the HCPC, nor was the short paragraph in SA’s witness statement in any detail, rather it was a brief description of what the Registrant had told him. The Panel also noted that SA mentioned two private patients, but there was no detail of dates or the purpose of their appointments. In contrast, the Registrant mentioned only one private patient in her written admission but gave some detail about that appointment, including the date and time of the Zoom appointment.

 

48.       The Panel had in mind the obligation on the HCPC to prove its case on the balance of probabilities and this burden did not shift to the Registrant. There is clearly a discrepancy between the evidence of SA and the Registrant, and the detail of the response of the Registrant in which she gave far more detail about the work she did with the private and the NHS patients which was in contrast to the sparse evidence in SA’s written statement.

 

49.       The Panel also noted that there were no alternatives set out in the charge, such as with the phrase and/ or, to divide the elements of the particular. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant has not been legally represented in the regulatory process, and had engaged with the HCPC in writing, representing herself. In such circumstances, bearing in mind the evidence of the SA, and that it was the HCPC’s case that that there were two private patients, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to consider amending the particular of its own volition at this late stage.

 

50.       In all the circumstance, the Panel were not satisfied on the balance of probabilities from the evidence of SA that there were two private patients.

 

51.       The Panel therefore found this Particular not proved.

 

4.          On 11 August 2021, you did not communicate professionally when you used inappropriate and/or discriminatory language towards Colleague A, when you said:

 

a.          “I wish I could be racist” or words to that effect.

 

b.          “The Muslims aren’t having the covid vaccination, if I get sick from covid, I am going to blame you, and Muslims” or words to that effect.

 

52.       Panel took into account the witness statement of SC, her exhibit, as well as her oral evidence.

 

53.       SC told the Panel that on 11 August 2021, she was with a group of colleagues, including the Registrant, in the staff room. She could not recollect what they were speaking about, but that it was “general office chat”.  The Registrant stated “I wish I could be racist”. SC told the panel she remembered “being quite surprised” at hearing this. SC told the Panel that a colleague asked the Registrant why she had said that.

 

54.       In reply the Registrant stated:

“The Muslims aren’t having the COVID vaccine. If I get sick from COVID, I am going to blame you and the Muslims”. SC stated that the Registrant was staring at her and that there was no other Muslim person in the room.

 

55.       SC’s evidence was that the Registrant was referring to her, and that the comment “was not made in a jokey way. Ms Field’s face was very serious”.

 

56.       SC remembered that she and her colleagues tried to move the conversation along, and the Registrant tried to join in, but it became uncomfortable for SC so she went home.

 

57.       SC’s evidence was that the incident was raised with her line manager, SA and that SC made a DATIX entry and told SA that she would report it to the HCPC. The DATIX entry was not exhibited in the evidence before the Panel. SC received an email from the Registrant dated 16 August 2021 containing a form of apology for the comments that she made. That email was exhibited by SC. SC stated that she still felt upset when she read the email because the Registrant took no real responsibility in it and that she did not feel that the apology was sincere.

 

58.       The Registrant did not address this Particular in her written response to the HCPC and there was no admission made by her. The Panel noted from the email written by the Registrant to SC on 16 August 2021 that it did not refer specifically to the comments for which she was apologising.

 

59.       The Panel considered that the evidence of SC was detailed, and she articulated her feelings both at the time of the incident and subsequently There was no suggestion that her allegations were fabricated or that SC had any bad faith towards the Registrant.

 

60.       On the basis of SC’s evidence, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant said the words set out at Particular 4a and 4b.

 

61.       The Panel also concluded that the statements made by the Registrant were unprofessional in that the language used was inappropriate and discriminatory. This was because the Registrant singled SC out, and sought to treat SC differently than the other colleagues in the room on the basis of her religion. This was not behaviour which befitted a registered professional.

 

62.       The Panel therefore found Particular 4 a and 4 b proved.

 

FTP92389

As a registered Practitioner Psychologist (PYL30426):

On 24 August 2023, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Service User A, in that:

1. You requested that they purchase alcohol on your behalf.

63.       The Panel took into account the witness statement, exhibits and oral evidence of SUA

64.       SUA’s evidence was that the Registrant treated her for around eleven sessions, beginning around May-June 2023. The sessions would take place at the Registrant’s place of practice at her home. On  24 August 2023 SUA attended for an appointment. At the end of her appointment, the Registrant asked her to go to the shop for her. SUA agreed. The Registrant then gave her a list for brandy, a specific brand of cigars and a specific bottle of white wine. The Registrant gave SUA her bank card and told her to use contactless to pay.

65.       SUA told the Panel that the Registrant told her to go to a small shop near her home. SUA told the Panel that she had to call the Registrant from the shop as they did not have the wine she wanted. SUA asked the Registrant about other options there and the Registrant told her which to get. SUA told the Panel in her oral evidence that she “felt very uncomfortable” going to the shop, and having to name the other brands in the shop, and explained that she struggles with making decisions when someone asks her to do something and found naming the brands of white wine was stressful. She told the Panel that she did not buy that much alcohol for herself or cigars and felt uncomfortable buying that much alcohol on her own at that time of day and that it felt “very wrong”.  SUA explained to he Panel that she “felt used”, that she was vulnerable, did not always understand the concept of boundaries, and as a “people pleaser” would say “yes”, but she knew it was wrong to say “yes” to that request.       

66.       The Registrant made no admission to this Particular in any of her written responses. 

67.       The Registrant was SUA’s treating Psychologist. To ask her to buy alcohol on her behalf transgressed professional boundaries in that she asked SUA to buy her personal items, as a service to her, which was nothing to do with the therapeutic relationship. She used SUA to further her own interest and on that basis she did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

68.       On the basis of SUA’s evidence, the Panel found this Particular proved.

2. On 31 August 2023:

a. You undertook an appointment with Service User A, having consumed alcohol and/or while under the influence of alcohol;

 

69.       SUA’s evidence was that on 31 August 2023 she returned to the Registrant’s home for another treatment session. As soon as she entered the        Registrant’s home, she could smell alcohol in the house. She stated in her witness statement:

“…the Registrant was not acting as she usually did. Her words were not making sense and she would just start laughing unprompted, which she had not done before. Whilst I was there, the postman rang the door. The Registrant tried to stand up and was grabbing at the wall. She started pointing to the postman and saying that he was such a nice man, which was unlike her. This made me realise that she had been drinking. I was very uncomfortable and just wanted the appointment to finish at this point.”

70.       In her oral evidence, SUA told the Panel that seeing the Registrant’s facial muscles looking different “really stressed me” and that the Registrant was using the wall to support herself walking towards the door when the postman came, making erratic hand movements and mixing up SUA’s family details.

71.       The Registrant made no admission to this Particular in any of her written responses.

72.       The Panel considered that there was a depth to the SUA’s evidence in her description of what she saw and experienced in entering the Registrant’s home, including the smell of alcohol and the Registrant’s behaviour.

73.       The Panel considered its reasoning in respect of the phrase “under the   influence of   alcohol” in respect of Particular 2, and applied its   reasoning to the same phrase in this Particular.

74.       Taking into account SUA’s evidence, the Panel found this Particular proved in that the Registrant undertook the appointment having consumed alcohol and while she was under the influence of alcohol.

75.       The Panel therefore found this Particular proved.

 

2. On 31 August 2023:

b. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Service User A, in that you requested that they purchase alcohol on your behalf.

76.       SUA’s evidence was that at the end of the appointment on 31 August 2023, the Registrant asked her to go to the shop again for her. In her witness statement she stated that she panicked and said that she would. SUA’s evidence was that the Registrant asked her to get her wine and brandy. SUA asked the Registrant if it was the same brand as last time, which she confirmed. The Registrant did not want cigars on that occasion. The Registrant asked SUA to pay with her own money and she would send her the money. SUA’s evidence was that this made her very uncomfortable and that she decided that she did not want to have further sessions with the Registrant.

77.       SUA exhibited a photograph of her hand holding a bottle with the word brandy on its label,  a bottle of what appears to be white wine, as well as what appears to be a receipt. The photograph is date stamped 31 August 2023 at 12.54pm, with a location. In addition, SUA exhibited a screenshot of a payment confirmation from her bank statement for groceries to a local shop with confirmation of the area as provided by Google, being the same area in which the photograph was taken.

78.       As SUA’s treating psychologist, to ask SUA to buy alcohol on her behalf transgressed professional boundaries in that she asked SUA to buy her personal items, as a service to her which was nothing to do with the therapeutic relationship. She used SUA to further her own interest and on that basis she did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

79.       On the basis of SUA’s evidence, the Panel found this Particular proved.

Decision on misconduct

 

80.       The Panel next considered whether or not the facts found proved constituted misconduct.

 

81.       Mr Cassells referred to his written Case Summary. He submitted that all matters found proved fell far short of what was expected of the Registrant in all of the circumstances, and were serious. Mr Cassells took the Panel through each of the factual findings. Mr Cassells referred to the seriousness of the record-keeping omissions which were prolonged and sustained despite the support given to the Registrant with her record-keeping by the Trust. Attending work while under the influence of alcohol fell well below the relevant standards, and the Registrant was obliged to adjust her practice if her health was impacting upon her clinical abilities. Mr Cassells submitted that the comments made to SC were “egregious” as was the  failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with SUA who was vulnerable. In addition, undertaking an appointment with SUA while under the influence of alcohol was again serious, and the Registrant should have adjusted her practice and indeed cancelled the appointment.

 

82.       The Panel took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the case of Roylance v GMC (No. 2) [2001] AC 311 and  Nandi v GMC  [2004] EWHC 2317. The Panel bore in mind that the issue of misconduct is a matter for its judgment, that there was no burden of proof at this stage, and that the conduct in question must be serious enough to constitute misconduct.  A breach of the relevant standards was not necessarily in itself determinative of whether there was misconduct present in this case.

 

83.       The Panel decided that the Registrant had breached the following standards:

 

HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016)

 

1.       Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers

 

 

          Treat service users and carers with respect

 

1.1     You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting

          their privacy and dignity.

 

1.2     You must work in partnership with service users…

 

 

 

          Challenge discrimination

 

1.5     You must not discriminate against service users, carers or

          colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your

          professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services

          that you provide.

 

Maintain appropriate boundaries

 

1.7     You must keep your relationships with service users and carers

          professional.

 

 

2        Communicate appropriately and effectively

 

          Communicate with service users and carers

 

2.1     You must be polite and considerate.

 

2.2     You must listen to service users and carers and take account of their needs           and wishes.

 

 

6        Manage risk

 

          Identify and minimise risk

 

6.1     You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to

          service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

 

6.2     You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything,

          which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or

          colleague at unacceptable risk.

 

          Manage your health

 

6.3     You must make changes to how you practise, or stop practising,

          if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or

          judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason.

 

 

 

Personal and professional behaviour

 

9.1     You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’ s trust

          and confidence in you and your profession.

 

 

 

10      Keep records of your work

 

          Keep accurate records

 

10.1    You must keep full, clear, and accurate records for everyone you

          care for, treat, or provide other services to.

 

10.2    You must complete all records promptly and as soon as possible

          after providing care, treatment or other services.

 

 

HCPC Standards of proficiency Practitioner psychologists (2009)

         

          Registrant practitioner psychologists must:

 

1.2     recognise the need to manage their own workload and resources effectively     and be able to practise accordingly

 

2        be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession

 

 

2.1     understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times

 

2.3     understand the need to respect and uphold the rights, dignity, values and     autonomy of service users including their role in the assessment, treatment      and intervention process and in maintaining health and wellbeing

 

2.4     recognise that relationships with service users should be based on mutual          respect and trust, and be able to maintain high standards of practice even in       situations of personal incompatibility

 

2.7     be able to exercise a professional duty of care

 

2.9     understand the power imbalance between practitioners and service users and     how this can be managed appropriately

 

2.10    be able to recognise appropriate boundaries and understand the dynamics of power relationships

 

3.1     understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

 

10.1    be able to keep accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible records in        accordance with applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines

10.2    recognise the need to manage records and all other information in           accordance with applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines

 

 

FTP 83289 and FTP84263

Particular 1a - e

84.       In respect of the factual findings at Particular 1a – e, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had breached Standards 9.1, 10.1  and 10.2 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics and Standards 1.2, 10.1 and 10.2 of the HCPC Standards of proficiency.

 

85.       In respect of Particular 1a, the Registrant did not maintain accurate and complete records for SUA in that she did not update SUA’s notes between 2 December 2020 and 24 February 2021. The Panel considered that a gap of some 2 months, during which the Registrant did not update the patient notes was a serious omission. The period of time in which no notes were made was lengthy, and this created a risk to SUA if another practitioner were to take over their care and not be aware of what interventions had taken place.

 

86.       In relation to Particular 1b, the  Registrant did not record in SUB’s notes the content and aim of sessions for a significant period, namely some 3 months. This meant that it was unclear what the aim was for SUB’s treatment and this created a risk to SUB if another practitioner were to take over their care and not be aware of what the content of the sessions and their plan had been.

 

87.       In relation to Particulars 1c, and 1d the Registrant did not update SUC’s notes over a period of some two and a half months , and did not update SUD’s notes with the details of a patient consultation appointment for over 4 months, which again created a risk to SUC and SUD if another practitioner were to take over their care and not be aware of what interventions had taken place.

 

88.       In relation to Particulars 1e (i)-(iv), the Registrant delayed completing notes of sessions for periods ranging from weeks to several months. Again, these omissions created a risk to SUE if another practitioner were to take over their care and not be aware of what interventions had taken place.

 

89.       In respect of all factual findings in Particular 1 and its sub-particulars, the Panel bore in mind SA’s witness statement that record-keeping issues in terms of not keeping patient records up to date had been identified in the Registrant’s practice as early as 2016. Her performance had not improved sufficiently and she had been placed on a disciplinary process with monitoring for a year, having been signed off on 2019 with a final warning. As such, the Trust had given her a clear indication that her record-keeping was below Trust standards.

 

90.       The witness statement of HK stated that before HK began her role in the Trust in 2020 the Registrant had already had her caseload reduced and had protected time to review and complete the records. Despite this support, HK became aware of the Registrant’s difficulties in this area around late 2020 and the Registrant told her that she was struggling to keep up. In the Panel’s view, this context increased the seriousness of the record-keeping issues. The Registrant had had support, yet was still unable to fulfil her duty in keeping records up to date in a reasonable time, and continued to allow the records to fall below proper standards.

 

91.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s omissions in maintaining accurate and complete records for service users in Particular 1  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

Particular 2

 

92.       The Panel considered that to commence a shift while under the influence of alcohol was a serious matter. The Registrant’s behaviour breached Standards 1.7, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. It placed service users, who were vulnerable, at risk, and it was likely to undermine public confidence in the Registrant herself as a professional, as well as public confidence in the profession as a whole. The Registrant has raised personal difficulties and health matters as an explanation for her difficulties with alcohol, but she had a clear obligation as a professional to adjust her practice and not attend her shift if she was under the influence of alcohol.

 

93.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

Particular 4

 

94.       In respect of this factual finding, the Panel decided that the Registrant breached 1.5 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

 

95.       In respect of Particular 4a, the Registrant expressed in a staff room gathering that she wished she could be racist, which was  inappropriate, unprofessional, and expressed an intention to discriminate on the basis of race. The Panel noted that SC stated that the Registrant was staring at her at this point and that there was no other Muslim person in the room. When the Registrant then made the comment at Particular 4b, SC’s evidence was that it was said with reference to SC herself, and that the Registrant was clearly not joking, and her facial expression “was very serious”. SC explained how the atmosphere became uncomfortable for her, despite colleagues trying to move the conversation along, and she went home.

 

96.       As SC told the Panel, she clearly found the incident upsetting and uncomfortable. She was singled out by the Registrant on the basis of her religion and was the subject of discriminatory language. This conduct had the capacity to undermine professional relationships and ultimately impact on the service provided by fellow professionals, if they were made to feel uncomfortable and singled out in the workplace. The Panel considered the Registrant’s behaviour to be deplorable, and having examined the evidence, the comments in Particular 4a and b were indicative of an attitudinal issue.

 

97.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

FTP 92389

Particular 1

 

98.       In respect of this finding, the Panel decided that the Registrant breached Standards 1.1, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. The Registrant also breached Standards 2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10 and 3.1 of the HCPC Standards of proficiency.

 

99.       The Registrant took advantage of the imbalance of power in the relationship with SUA by failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and requesting SUA to purchase alcohol on her behalf. In so doing, the Registrant abused her position of trust. She placed SUA in a difficult and stressful position, and with the sessions taking place in the Registrant’s home, it was all the more important for the Registrant to ensure that all aspects of professional boundaries were maintained at all times. The Registrant was an experienced professional and the Panel was in no doubt that she was aware or should have been aware of this need.  SUA told the Panel that she felt uncomfortable going to the shop to buy that amount of alcohol at that time of day and that it felt “very wrong” as she did not buy that much alcohol for herself. In addition, she struggled in making decisions for others and when the brand of wine the Registrant wanted was not in the shop SUA had to call the Registrant and tell her about  the other brands in the shop which made her uncomfortable. SUA stated that she “felt used”. SUA described herself as a “people pleaser” who did not always understand the concept of boundaries and stated that she agreed to the Registrant’s request even though she knew it was wrong to agree. The Panel considered that the Registrant disregarded SUA’s needs, caused her stress and put her own interests first. The Registrant breached her position of trust, and this struck at the heart of her relationship with SUA as her counselling psychologist.

 

100.   The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

Particular 2a

 

101.   The Registrant’s behaviour as found proved breached Standards 1.7, 2.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. It disregarded the interests of SUA and placed her at risk. SUA described the Registrant’s unsteady walking and unusual behaviour which suggested clearly that she was under the influence of alcohol which SUA  found upsetting.  The Registrant has raised personal difficulties and health matters as an explanation for her difficulties with alcohol, but she had a clear professional duty  to adjust her practice and not attend her appointment if she was under the influence of alcohol.

 

102.   The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

Particular 2b

 

103.   The Panel adopted the reasoning in respect of its decision on misconduct in relation to FTP 92389 Particular 1. In addition, this was a repeated request to buy alcohol a week later, and in the Panel’s view indicated an entrenched attitudinal disrespect for professional boundaries within a clinical relationship and a disregard for SUA’s interests as well as her feelings as a person who was vulnerable. In addition the request for alcohol was made at a time when the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol, which aggravated the  seriousness of the request. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour was deplorable.

 

104.   The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct  fell so far below the standards expected as to constitute misconduct.

 

Decision on Impairment

105.   Mr Cassells  referred to his written Case Summary and submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the basis of both the personal and public components. He referred to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and reminded the Panel of the general principles applicable to the decision which the Panel would make.

 

106.   The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to Grant and R (on the Application of Cohen) v. GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin). The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel was aware that current impairment is a matter for its own independent judgment and that public protection and the wider public interest should be considered.

 

107.   The Panel took into account the questions formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman report, as set out in the case of Grant, which are presented in Grant  as a test of impairment and ask whether a practitioner:

 

a.     “a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

 

b.     has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or

 

c.     has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession;…”

 

108.   The Panel decided that the Registrant had acted in all the ways as set out in these questions by her past actions, taking into account its finding on Misconduct.

 

109.   The Registrant’s actions in FTP 83289 and 84263 Particular 1 and 2 and FTP 92389 Particular 1 and 2a and 2b created an unwarranted risk of harm, and in relation to SUA specifically (FTP92389), the Panel concluded that actual emotional harm and upset was caused to SUA.

 

110.   As a result of all the of the misconduct set out above, the Panel concluded that the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute by her actions, and breached fundamental tenets of the profession, including breach of the duty to protect service users’ interests .

 

111.   The Registrant has produced some written reflections on the record-keeping matters in Particular 1 and attending work while under the influence of alcohol as found in Particular 2. Her reflections demonstrated some insight in that she acknowledged her omissions and that she did not act as was expected of her as a professional.

 

112.   The Panel took into account the information regarding the Registrant’s heath, but it was limited in scope and not up to date, and as such there was no medical evidence before the Panel to assist it to understand the Registrant’s health position currently. In addition, the Panel was aware from the witness statement of SA and also from the Registrant s written communications that she had been assisted by AA and counselling for anxiety, that she had sought medical support, been prescribed medication and attended alcohol support service. However, the Panel had limited information on these matters and again no up to date information to help the Panel to understand if and how the health concerns have been addressed. The Panel did note from the Registrant’s written reflections that she did not seek to excuse her behaviour on the grounds of her difficulties with alcohol, rather she sought to give context for her behaviour. This indicated, in the Panel’s view,  a further level of insight.

 

113.   The Panel noted the testimonials submitted by the Registrant but they were from patients rather than fellow professionals. While they were positive, and the Panel took them into account, the Panel considered that testimonials from the colleagues would have been of assistance in understanding how fellow professionals who know her well viewed her personally and professionally. The Panel also noted the information that the Registrant submitted about training she has undertaken, but this was a practice-based course not directly relevant to the misconduct .

 

114.   The Registrant has not addressed at all  the remaining misconduct in any of her written reflections, namely in relation to her behaviour towards SC and SUA. She has therefore not  demonstrated any understanding of the impact of her behaviour on SC and SUA nor, consequentially, has she demonstrated an understanding of impact of such behaviour on public confidence in her or the profession as a whole. In addition, the Panel noted its earlier decision that her behaviours in relation to SC and SUA indicated an attitudinal issue which has not been addressed, which was particularly significant in relation to the repeated breaches of professional boundaries in respect of SUA, including the Registrant’s repeated abuse of her position of trust.

 

115.   Therefore, as stated above, the Panel could identify only some insight in relation to some of the misconduct and was not able to conclude that there was a good level of insight into the misconduct as a whole.

 

116.   Further, there was no demonstration of remediation of the misconduct. While the Registrant had been involved in a disciplinary process with the Trust due to her record-keeping deficiencies, she had not reached a general level of satisfactory improvement and was still struggling in the ensuing years. In addition, she attended work under the  influence of alcohol twice, and there is no evidence about how, if at all, she has addressed her difficulties with alcohol by way of up to date independent verifiable evidence, such as a report from a health care or support service professional. Further, in relation to her conduct towards SC and her repeated breach of professional boundaries in relation to SUA, there is no evidence that  the Registrant has sought to address the concerns by taking  efforts to demonstrate what steps she has taken to ensure they will not happen again.

 

117.   Consequently the Panel decided that there was a real risk that the Registrant would repeat her actions and thus behave in the ways set out in Grant in the future in the same or similar circumstances.

 

118.   The Panel was therefore of the view that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the basis of the personal component. 

 

119.   The Panel next considered the wider public interest.

 

120.   With regard to the misconduct, the Panel was of the view that it was serious. The Registrant was a senior professional and had a duty to adhere to fundamental professional duties. Instead her behaviour fell below the standards expected of her in respect of four categories of conduct,  namely record keeping failures, attending work under the influence of alcohol twice, discriminatory comments to SC and a repeated breach of professional boundaries in relation to SUA in asking her to purchase alcohol on her behalf.  These are wide-ranging issues.

 

121.   The Panel looked at the totality of the misconduct, which continued  over a period of some time, and, in respect of SUA, flew in the face of her fundamental duty to protect and promote Service User A’s interests and treat her with respect.

 

122.   The Registrant’s behaviour brought the profession into disrepute. In these circumstances,  the Panel decided that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to maintain confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made.

 

123.   The Panel therefore found the Registrant to be impaired on the basis of both the personal component and the public components.

 

Decision on Sanction

 

 

124.   Mr Cassells referred to provisions of the HCPC Sanctions Policy dated March 2026 (SP). Mr Cassells submitted that the seriousness of the misconduct should be considered, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors. He referred to the SP’s identification of the issues of discrimination and breach of professional boundaries as matters of particular seriousness, and suggested that such misconduct was more likely to result in restrictive sanctions. However, he submitted that the issue of which final sanction should be imposed is for the Panel’s judgment.

 

125.   The Panel took into account the SP and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel bore in mind that what, if any, sanction to impose  is a matter for its own independent judgment, and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and uphold the wider public interest. Further, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order that the Panel makes is the least restrictive order that would protect the public and address the public interest. And impact on the Registrant must not be disproportionate when considering the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest.

 

126.   The Panel was of the view that the following were mitigating factors in this case:

 

      i.           demonstration of a level of insight into the misconduct found in           Particulars 1 and 2 (FTP83289 and FTP84263);

 

      ii.          apology given by the Registrant in respect of the misconduct in           Particular 1 and 2 (FTP83289 and FTP84263);

 

      iii.         some evidence of  health concerns at the time in question

 

 

127.   The Panel was of the view the following were aggravating factors:

 

i.                 No demonstration of insight into the misconduct in Particular 4a and b, Particulars 1 and 2a and 2 b (FTP 92389);

ii.                No remediation demonstrated;

iii.              repeated pattern of behaviour in attending for work under the influence of alcohol, and breaching professional boundaries with SUA;

iv.              actions motivated by self-interest in respect of SUA

v.               harm to SUA, and risk of harm to other service users;

vi.              upset caused to SC in front of other colleagues;

vii.            abuse of professional position and trust.

 

 

128.   The Panel took into account that the Registrant had not been the subject of previous regulatory proceedings.

 

129.   The Panel took the view that the misconduct in this case was at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness, based on all the circumstances. In coming to this decision, it took account of the SP on discrimination, abuse of professional position when involving a vulnerable person and breach of professional boundaries.

 

130.   The Panel took into account paragraphs 97-104 of the SP in respect of discrimination. The discriminatory language towards SC in Particular 4a and 4b was particularly serious. Such behaviour is likely to undermine public confidence in the profession and also the trust of patients, including those of minority groups, who may be in need of treatment from a professional and may be dissuaded from accessing that treatment if they knew a professional had expressed such language. As such, as well as a risk to public confidence, this misconduct also had the capacity to prevent or cause worry or concern to those in need of treatment.   The Panel considered that in Particular 4a and 4b the Registrant had exhibited direct discrimination, namely treating SC less favourably than others because of her religion. In addition, the Registrant exhibited harassment, in that it was unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that created an offensive environment for SC. 

 

131.   The Panel took into account paragraphs 105-113 of the SP in respect of the breach of professional boundaries in relation to SUA. The relationship between the Registrant and SUA was supposed to be based on trust, confidence and professionalism. A fundamental aspect of this was that the Registrant should act in SUA’s interests at all times. It was all the more important because the Registrant was offering sessions to SUA in her (the Registrant’s) own home. The Registrant abused her position of authority and trust  in respect of SUA and was motivated by self-interest rather than the interests of SUA.  It was repeated a week after the first instance which indicated a disregard for SUA’s feelings and interests, and which increased the level of seriousness. The Registrant’s breach of professional boundaries not only was likely to undermine public confidence in the Registrant and the profession as a whole, but it also meant, as SUA herself told the Panel,  that SUA no longer felt comfortable to continue her sessions with the Registrant, and she decided to stop them after the events on 31 August 2023. In so doing, SUA did not receive the report on her health condition which it had been intended that she would receive from the Registrant, and which had been a main aim of the sessions being held. In considering these matters, the Panel also bore in mind the vulnerability of SUA.

 

132.   The Registrant has not attended this final hearing and has therefore been unable to address her behaviour before the Panel. Apart from the insight shown in relation to Particulars 1 and 2 (FTP83289 and 84263) in her written response to the HCPC, there has been no insight or reflection into the remaining misconduct, into why it happened or how to prevent  it from recurring in the future. Nor has she demonstrated that  she understands the  impact of her behaviour on SC and SUA, or the wider impact on the profession and public confidence in the profession as a whole as a result of that behaviour. Moreover, the Panel has already decided that there is a real risk of repetition resulting from the insufficient insight and any remedial steps to address the misconduct.

 

133.   The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct and the ongoing risk to public protection, it would be inappropriate to take no action. It would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession.

 

134.   The Panel then considered a Caution Order. The Registrant’s misconduct was not minor in nature, it was not an isolated event, and there is a real risk of repetition. Furthermore, the Registrant has not demonstrated that she has taken any of the steps required to address that misconduct. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public and meet the public interest.

 

135.   The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has not attended these proceedings, and has expressed in her email dated 17 April 2026 to solicitors acting for the HCPC that she did not wish to attend any future HCPC hearings, that she had been fully retired for two years, and wished to be removed from the HCPC register.   As such, there was no suggestion that the Registrant would comply with any conditions. Further, the misconduct in relation to SC and SUA demonstrated an attitudinal issue in her behaviour. The Panel considered that it would be impossible to formulate conditions to safeguard against the attitudinal issues in this case which could be demonstrated in relation to colleagues or service users. The Panel therefore decided that conditions would be unworkable and neither sufficient to protect the public, nor in the public interest.

 

136.   The Panel next considered a Suspension Order,  The Panel took the view that, in light of the Registrant’s absence from the regulatory proceedings, her expressed wish not to attend any future HCPC hearings, and her lack of sufficient insight and lack of remediation, she is either unable or unwilling to resolve her failings. There was a pattern of behaviour  which gave rise to a real risk of harm to service users, in the repeated record-keeping deficiencies, attending work while under the influence of alcohol and breaches of professional boundaries with SUA, which caused SUA harm.  These matters together with the ongoing real risk  of repetition, led the Panel to conclude that Suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public or uphold the wider public interest.

 

137.   Taken together, all of the factors set out above led the Panel to decide that, in light of  the nature and gravity of the concerns, coupled with the real risk of repetition, a Striking Off Order was the only way in which the public could be protected, and the only way in which the wider public interest could be upheld in terms of maintaining proper standards of professional conduct and behaviour, and upholding confidence in the profession. The Panel was also of the view that any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect. In coming to this decision, the Panel was particularly mindful of its findings set out above in relation to the seriousness of the discriminatory language and the breach of professional boundaries and abuse of trust towards SUA, the harm caused to SUA, and the impact upon the therapeutic relationship between the Registrant and SUA. In addition, there was the likely impact on the public confidence of the discriminatory language as well as the breach of professional boundaries.

 

138.   In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the principle of proportionality, and the potential  impact that such a sanction will have on the Registrant’s right to practise her profession, as well as potential reputational and financial impact. However, the Panel decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard.

 

 

139.   The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order.

Interim Order

Application for an interim order to cover the appeal period

 

1.     The Panel heard an application from Mr Cassells to proceed in the Registrant’s absence to hear an application for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period and any possible appeal made by the Registrant. Mr Cassells submitted that such an order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest, and was consistent with the Panel’s imposition of a Striking Off Order as a final sanction.

2.     The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Interim Orders” as well as the paragraphs 182 – 186 of the SP. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3.     The Panel decided whether or not to hear the application for an interim order in the absence of the Registrant. In deciding this issue, the Panel took into account that the Registrant had been informed, in the Notice of the hearing dated 20 January 2025, that this Panel may impose an interim order at any stage of the hearing. In addition, the Panel took into account the reasons set out in its earlier decision to commence the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.  In the circumstances, and for the same reasons, the Panel determined that it would also be fair, proportionate and in the interests of justice to proceed.

4.     The Panel took into account its previous findings in respect of impairment and sanction, and the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest.

5.     The Panel came to the conclusion that an interim order is necessary to protect the public and that an interim order is also in the wider public interest in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards, relying on the reasons set out in its previous decisions. The Panel has already decided that there is a real risk of repetition of the misconduct. In addition, in the circumstances and relying on the reasons as set out in its previous decisions, public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant were not made subject to an interim order during the appeal period.

6.     The Panel was mindful of its decision at the sanction stage that Conditions were not appropriate. The Panel considered that not to impose an Interim Suspension Order would be inconsistent with its finding that a Striking Off Order is required, and decided that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary.

7.     The Panel recognised that the Panel must take into consideration the potential impact of such an interim order on the Registrant as part of the principle of proportionality, and must balance such impact on the Registrant with the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest. The Panel was satisfied that the need to protect the public and the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard.

8.     The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months, a duration which is necessary and proportionate to allow any appeal which the Registrant brings, to be concluded.

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. 

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 Nadine Field

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
19/06/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Hearing has not yet been held
19/06/2026	Health Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
20/04/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
09/07/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Interim Order Review	Interim Suspension
11/12/2024	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Application	Interim Suspension
14/11/2024	Investigating Committee	Interim Order Application	Adjourned