Matthew Thorpe

Background

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

2. On 22 May 2019, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant. The Registrant stated that he had been advised to complete a self-referral by his bank contract employer, following an incident on 24 December 2018.

3. The incident related to the Registrant’s attendance on a cardiac arrest patient and his interpretation of the patient’s electrocardiogram (ECG). North West Ambulance Service NWAS (“The Trust”) provided further information in relation to the matter, advising that on 24 December 2018, there was a delay in appropriate conveyance of that patient (Patient A), and a delay in providing defibrillation to Patient A, who presented in a ventricular fibrillation (VF) rhythm.

4. At its meeting on 23 November 2021, the Investigating Committee (‘IC’) of the HCPC determined that there was a case to answer in relation to an allegation of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practice.

5. The HCPC commissioned an expert opinion from Dr Vince Clarke. Dr Clarke provided a report dated 2 May 2022 which highlighted a number of criticisms of the Registrant’s conduct during the call out on 24 December 2018.

6. The Allegation was amended at a preliminary meeting on 23 February 2024.

Submissions on behalf of the HCPC

7. Ms Bass adopted the skeleton argument of Capsticks LLP on behalf of the HCPC dated 19 February 2026 on which she elaborated in her oral submissions to the Panel.

8. She referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’, dated January 2026.

9. The HCPC will consider resolving a case by consent:

a) after an Investigating Committee panel has found that there is a ‘case to answer’;

b) where the Registrant is willing to admit both the substance of the alleged facts and that his or her fitness to practise is impaired by virtue of the statutory grounds alleged;

c) where the sanction proposed in the consent order is consistent with the expected outcome if the case was to proceed to a contested hearing.

10. As the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public, a panel should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that:

a) the appropriate level of public protection is being secured;

b) doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest;

c) the registrant understands what they are consenting to and the effect of the consent order that they are asking the panel to make.

11.  Before considering a draft consent order, a panel should satisfy itself that the HCPC:

• Has provided a clear, appropriately detailed and objectively justified explanation within its supporting skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent on the terms set out in the draft consent order; and

• Has made clear to the Registrant concerned that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to the consent order being approved.

12. The Registrant has not made full admissions to all of the alleged facts. The HCPC policy on Consensual Disposal (Annex A to the Practice Note) observes that “A registrant should not be prevented from resolving a case by consent simply because he or she disputes a minor aspect of the allegation”.

13. The parties agree that the admissions can be characterised as admitting the substance of the allegation. The Registrant maintains denials in relation to Particulars 1e, 1f (relating to Capnography and an endotracheal tube) and 2 (relating to not completing controlled drugs safe checks). The HCPC submits that the substance of the allegation is that the Registrant did not recognise or respond appropriately to a patient in cardiac arrest which an expert witness describes as a falling significantly below the HCPC standards of proficiency for Paramedics. 

14. The other factual particulars, which are denied, are supported by evidence from direct eye-witnesses but, significantly, the expert says that whether these would constitute failings falling below the standards expected of a Paramedic is a decision for the Panel. 

15. In addition, the denied particulars are not the most serious of the particulars alleged. In those circumstances discontinuing those particulars would not impact on the overall seriousness of the case, or identifying an appropriate sanction.

16. In relation to Particular 1e relating to alleged failure to apply capnography, the expert explains that capnography is used to confirm the correct placement of an ET tube but also that it is one of several methods of confirming ET tube placement. In relation to Particular 1f regarding allegedly not securing an ET tube, the expert expressly states that, in his opinion, this is not a breach of the standards expected of a competent paramedic.

17. In relation to Particular 2 (relating to not completing controlled drugs safe checks) the expert explains that if the Registrant failed to follow a controlled drugs signing out policy this would fall below HCPC standards. He also identifies that the concern arises from the Registrant working out of his usual area as a bank paramedic. Therefore, the HCPC submits that the evidence taken at its highest may indicate a lack of familiarity with local policies due to being a bank paramedic. There is no evidence of a general disregard for proper medicines management. The HCPC submits that the Panel should therefore be reassured that allowing the proposed disposal by consent does not result in a risk of critical issues being left unresolved, and also, the proposed conditions would mitigate the risk associated with working bank shifts since they specifically prohibit this.

18. As set out above, before agreeing to the case being resolved by consent, the Panel should be satisfied that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured, and that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

19. With regard to “The appropriate level of public protection is being secured”, the Registrant, via his representative, has described his deep regret concerning the incident that is the subject of the allegation. He has submitted that he has reflected on the incident and that this process has been ongoing, demonstrated by his updated reflections demonstrating a progression of his insight. He has undertaken targeted training to address the deficiencies resulting in the allegation and welcomes an opportunity to put his learning into practice by way of conditions of practice.

20. The HCPC submits that these conditions provide regulatory oversight and protections to ensure that the Registrant is able to return to a registered role in a supported and controlled capacity, and appropriately balance the Registrant’s desire to return to practice with the need to ensure that service users are adequately protected.

21. The HCPC submits that the proposed Order is of the kind which the Panel would make if the case had proceeded to a full substantive hearing, taking into consideration that this is a clinical concern, the Registrant has made progress towards mitigating the risk of repetition, and he has demonstrated a willingness to engage with conditions of practice.

22. If the Panel does grant the application, there will be further mandatory oversight from a subsequent panel and they will consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. This provides a further and important aspect of oversight and public protection, to ensure there have been no further clinical concerns before the Registrant is allowed to return to unrestricted practice.

23. With regard to the need to address the wider public interest, the HCPC submits that the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order for 18 months would reassure the well-informed member of the public, apprised of the facts of the case, that the HCPC has acted in a robust yet proportionate way, and adequately addressed the concerns as referred by the Investigating Committee panel. 

24. Given that this case relates to clinical concerns, it is submitted that it is unlikely that a panel would impose a Suspension Order on public interest grounds if they were satisfied that conditions would adequately protect the public. 

25. The HCPC further submits that there is unlikely to be any benefit in the matter proceeding to a full substantive hearing, given the Registrant’s admissions and that the final outcome is likely to be the same or a similar order. Dealing with the matter in the way proposed will ensure the case is concluded without further delay, and will enable all parties to move forward, more than five years after the initial referral.

26. With regard to Particulars 1e-1f and 2, which are denied by the Registrant, the HCPC proposes, subject to the Panel’s approval, to offer no evidence on the basis of the admissions made to the remaining Particulars.

Submissions by the Registrant 

27. On behalf of the Registrant Ms Hewitt supported the HCPC’s application.

28. Ms Hewitt referred the Panel to the documents submitted on behalf of the Registrant, including his CPD, reflective statements and testimonials, demonstrating that his insight has developed and he has undertaken some targeted CPD relevant to crisis management and ECG interpretation. 

29. Ms Hewitt informed the Panel that the Registrant had not practised as a Paramedic since 2022. He is currently employed as a storeman by the Royal Irish Regiment. 

Decision

30. The Panel carefully considered all the information before it, including the witness statement, the testimonials on behalf of the Registrant, the skeleton argument of Capsticks LLP on behalf of the HCPC and the oral submissions of Ms Bass and Ms Hewitt respectively. 

31. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ and ‘Discontinuance of Proceedings’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel understood that it could conclude the case on an expedited basis, based on the terms of the draft Consent Order. Alternatively, the Panel could reject the proposal and set the case down for a full substantive hearing.

32. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC’s case was well founded in the light of the information and admissions before it. The Panel decided that Particulars 1a-d and 1g-1i of the Allegation, which the Registrant admitted, amounted to lack of competence and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was, and is, thereby impaired. 

33. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepts that his actions were serious enough that a finding of impairment based on the public component is necessary to protect service users and required to maintain public confidence in the profession.

34. The proposal for consensual disposal was, in the Panel’s opinion, reached as a result of proper and well considered discussions between the parties. The explanation that had been articulated on behalf of the HCPC was well reasoned and justified.

35. With regard to the HCPC’s proposal to offer no evidence in respect of Particulars 1e, 1f and 2, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Discontinuance of Proceedings’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

36. The Panel reminded itself that its task is to ensure that the HCPC has proper grounds for not continuing with proceedings and has provided an objectively justified explanation for so doing.

37. Having undertaken an appropriate enquiry, the Panel is satisfied that the proposal to offer no evidence in respect of Particulars 1e, 1f and 2 does not represent an under-prosecution of this matter. The Panel did not consider that these particulars added to the gravamen of the case against the Registrant and that would be no public interest in pursuing them to a final hearing. The Panel therefore gave permission to the HCPC to offer no evidence in relation to Particulars 1e, 1f and 2.

38. Having satisfied itself that the facts and statutory grounds were made out, the Panel considered the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’ and the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness, balancing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and noting that a sanction should not be any more restrictive than was required in the public interest.

39. The Panel considered that taking no action would not be appropriate in this instance, as it would not provide the requisite level of public protection that this case necessitated. It also found that a Caution Order would be insufficient to protect the public as it would not provide any regulatory oversight of the Registrant’s practise or mark the seriousness of the matters. 

40. The Panel agreed that a Conditions of Practice Order for 18 months would properly protect the public and address the wider public interest. It would provide regulatory oversight while the Registrant addresses the issues with his competency to ensure that the public are protected whilst he does so. It would also re-assure the public that appropriate regulatory action has been taken and maintain public confidence in the profession.

41. The Panel did not consider a more onerous sanction was necessary or proportionate in this case as the Registrant has engaged with his regulator proactively and  has shown willingness to remediate and work under conditions of practice.

42. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the disposal of this matter by consent in this manner would:

•   protect the public; and

•   not undermine public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process; and

•   the matter was not so serious as to make a public substantive hearing necessary.

43. The Panel therefore approved the disposal of this matter by a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months as set out in the Consent Order before it.

44. There was no application for an Interim Order by the HCPC.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date this Order takes effect you, Mr Matthew Thorpe must comply with the conditions of practice as set out below.

At all times when practising as a HCPC registered paramedic:

1. You must confine your professional practice to one substantive employer and you must not carry out any bank work.

2.  You must not work as a solo first responder.

3. You must not work as an emergency/first responder unless you are crewed with another HCPC registered paramedic.

4. You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor, registered by the HCPC, or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of the commencement of any practice as a HCPC registered paramedic. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

5. Your supervision must include monthly meetings with your supervisor in order to review your cases, in relation to emergency/first response; crisis management; cardiac patients; and ECG interpretation.

6. You must maintain a record of supervision meetings and make this available to the HCPC on request.

7. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by an employer or propose to take up any other or further employment, in either case where such employment relates to practice requiring HCPC registration in the United Kingdom.

8. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

9. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

(a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

(b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and

(c) any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

No notes available

History of Hearings for Matthew Thorpe