Chelsea Rutledge

 

9.              In October 2017 the Registrant was found guilty of assault by beating and received a 12-month conditional discharge following an altercation in May 2017 with a neighbour who had knocked on her door to ask why the Registrant was filming/photographing them.

 

10.           An Amended Notice of Allegation was sent to the Registrant by letter dated 19 September 2025.

 

Evidence

 

11.           The Panel reviewed the documentary evidence contained within the 243-page hearing bundle, and a case summary of 6 pages from the HCPC. The Panel also had sight of a 96-page bundle submitted on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel heard oral evidence from Colleague A and TG, the LAS Investigator, as well as evidence from the Registrant and MH who gave character evidence.

 

12.           Colleague A gave evidence on affirmation, and his statements were admitted in evidence. Colleague A was also referred to the statements he made as part of the internal LAS investigation which he provided on 23 December 2016, and the interview which was conducted on 31 March 2017.

 

13.           Colleague A confirmed that he had joined LAS in 1989 and had been moved to a frontline ambulance role after around a year. He confirmed that he first met the Registrant in November 2016 and that they worked between 10 and 15 shifts together.

 

14.           Colleague A was questioned about the incident which is said to have occurred on 21 December 2016. He outlined that when he and the Registrant arrived at Patient A’s address, they were approached outside by Patient A’s father who was hysterical. Colleague A stated that Patient A’s father was really upset and was asking them to go inside to take care of his daughter.

 

15.           Colleague A described how he and the Registrant were led inside by Patient A’s father and there was lots of screaming in the house. Colleague A stated that he heard a lady saying ‘Let me die’. Colleague A described the Registrant placing her hand on his chest and pushing him into the living room, telling him not to come out. He described the push as not being forceful.

 

16.           The Registrant went to speak with Patient A and Colleague A could hear the Registrant screaming at the girl and using swear words. He could hear Patient A shouting that she didn’t want to go to hospital. Colleague A stated that he had never been asked before to wait outside, however, he was close enough to hear what was being said between the Registrant and Patient A. He estimated he was around 3 feet away.

 

17.           Colleague A explained that it was horrible to hear some of the comments being made to Patient A by the Registrant about mental health services, but that he didn’t say anything as he didn’t want a confrontation in front of the patient and her family, as it would impact upon the reputation of the service.

 

18.           When asked about whether Patient A’s father saw the push or heard the words alleged to have been used by the Registrant, Colleague A stated that the father went outside to speak with his partner at one point and went up and down the stairs a few times. He believed Patient A’s attention to have been elsewhere.

 

19.           Colleague A was asked about the comments alleged to have been made to Patient A by the Registrant in relation to men. He confirmed the Registrant had used the word ‘fanny’. At this point Colleague A had been shown upstairs to see the belt Patient A had used in her suicide attempt and he wanted to speak with the Registrant away from Patient A. Colleague A described the Registrant shouting at him and telling him off. He stated ‘she didn’t want to believe me and walked away’. Colleague A stated that Patient A’s father was stood next to him when the Registrant accused him of making up stories. Colleague A stated that he was upset and frustrated at being called a liar as he had never lied on paperwork, to patients or colleagues.

 

20.           Colleague A stated that he expressed concern to the Registrant that Patient A may have internal damage as well as the mental health issues. He believes that Patient A declined to go to hospital due to the Registrant refusing to take her. Colleague A described completing the paperwork in the house with Patient A so she could sign it before returning to the ambulance where the Registrant was sat in the driver’s seat.

 

21.           Colleague A outlined the areas on the Patient Report Form (PRF) which had been completed by him, and which parts had been completed by the Registrant. He indicated that it was usual for the attendant (as opposed to the driver) to complete the paperwork and he sat with Patient A after the Registrant had left to go through the paperwork and ensure it was safe to leave her overnight. He then carried all the equipment back to the ambulance himself. He stated that it was stressful for him as he did not have support.

 

22.           Colleague A stated that when he returned to the ambulance the Registrant would not look at him. He stated that the Registrant used some derogatory words towards him and called him a liar. He stated that when she made a comment about him being like her neighbours who eat lots of curry, he asked if she was calling him a ‘paki’ and she did not respond. When asked about the context of the use of the word ‘curry’, Colleague A confirmed that the Registrant was complaining that she could not sleep due to the smell of curry. He stated ‘she knows I’m Asian and eat curry’ but she never said he smelled of curry. Colleague A indicated that it made him think ‘why’ but he never asked. He stated that the Registrant told him he behaved like her neighbours.

 

23.           Colleague A said that he felt like that period when she was calling him a liar and a thief went on for hours, saying that she had seen him stealing things from patients’ homes. He stated that he decided that he wanted to go back to the station as he could not carry on and had had enough. He indicated that he had never been in that situation where he felt he couldn’t carry on with his shift, but he had concerns about working with the Registrant through the night. Colleague A indicted that he knew the difficulties this could cause and he would usually carry on even if unwell. It was confirmed that it was only after NT, the Incident Response Officer (IRO) brought him and the Registrant together, having spoken to them separately, that he felt they could no longer work together.

 

24.           Colleague A was asked about the physical contact between him and the Registrant. He stated that she would kick him or slap him on the shoulder many times in patients’ homes and in the back of the ambulance. He believed that patients will have seen it once or twice and he did not know why they had not complained. Colleague A stated that it was not accidental or done in a way to get his attention and that it didn’t hurt. He described the Registrant getting angry when things did not go her way and stated that everything he did was wrong. Colleague A confirmed that he would ask the Registrant to stop but that he never reported it as he was ashamed, he had never come across this behaviour before. Colleague A stated that he would only report an issue with a colleague if it impacted patients.

 

25.           Colleague A stated that the Registrant would call him names such as ‘idiot’ and ‘bastard’ and he does not know what led to it. Colleague A could also hear these words being used against him by the Registrant when she spoke to the IRO on the 21 December 2016. He described the abuse starting almost immediately after they started working together when the Registrant had an issue with the management. She would call him an ‘arse licker’.

 

26.           Colleague A stated that when comments were made by the Registrant about other countries, he did not concern himself with those as what other countries do is nothing to do with him. Colleague A referred to one callout involving a young child with a high temperature where the Registrant was trying to persuade the parent to transport the child to hospital. He indicated that the Registrant was questioning whether they would have got an ambulance in their country. Colleague A indicated that comments such as these only occurred with patients who were Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME). Colleague A did not know why he did not mention the racial comments to the manager when making his statement but stated that so much went on at that time.

 

27.           Colleague A stated he felt that the child should have been transported to hospital in the ambulance as they were there. He was concerned that something might happen on the way while they were being transported by car. However, the Paramedic is the lead clinician in that situation, and they make the final decision. He stated that when he doesn’t agree with a decision, he sometimes does question it.

 

28.           Colleague A indicated that he had discussed a family friendly rota with the Registrant and when it was not agreed the Registrant called her manager a number of names including ‘fat’ and she accused him of being an ‘arse-licker’.

 

29.           Colleague A indicated that he had never come across the Registrant prior to their first shift together and estimated there would be between 180 and 200 people working at the station. He believed he knew everyone who worked there.

 

30.           Colleague A confirmed that he was aware of a number of options available to report inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. He stated that he was used to talking with colleagues to resolve any issues.

 

31.           Colleague A was referred to the call categories assigned to each job at that time and confirmed that green was a non-life-threatening incident which required a response within an hour. On being referred to the PRF he confirmed the callout on 21 December 2016 was a ‘green 2’ call. He indicated that calls to a hanging incident are usually red calls as they involve cardiac arrest and are life threatening.

 

32.           Colleague A was unable to confirm how long he and the Registrant were at the home of Patient A, but he believes it was a long time. It was confirmed with reference to the call log that it was just over 2 hours. Colleague A stated that his recollection of events was clear, it was just the times and distances between him and the Registrant when on the scene which may be wrong.

 

33.           It was confirmed that Colleague A had been so distraught by what had happened that he had fled the country. He also stated that he was still affected by it. He stated that he was not a liar.

 

34.           The Panel heard evidence on affirmation from TG who was the local investigator appointed by LAS to consider events that occurred on 21 December 2016 relating to the Registrant and Patient A. The remit of his investigation included unprofessional conduct towards Colleague A. The statement of TG was admitted in evidence.

 

35.           TG confirmed that when he spoke with Colleague A, on 31 March 2017, he appeared emotionally distressed and was tearful, wiping tears from his face. He confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the Registrant or Colleague A as he worked in a different area. He did not believe that the notes of the interview would be a verbatim account and they would usually be sent to the staff member to check and sign.

 

36.           TG stated that he had run into Colleague A after the investigation, around mid-2020, and asked how the complaint had ended. During the conversation, Colleague A had indicated that he believed that the Registrant was racist. He confirmed that racial comments were not mentioned as part of the investigation which he undertook.

 

37.           TG confirmed that he had spoken with Patient A’s father as he was conscious Patient A had undergone a mental health crisis, was vulnerable, and he did not wish to add to her stresses. He was aware that the father was present throughout and was mindful of patient confidentiality. It was confirmed that Patient A’s father had said he had not witnessed anything untoward. TG stated that to investigate any further beyond the initial terms of reference would have required further interviews and would have taken much longer. He indicated that his investigation had focused on that call out / shift and did not cover any wider issues.

 

38.           TG considered the main issue to have been a clash of personalities. He outlined the actions he would have taken had he been the IRO on site that night. He stated that had there been thefts he would have expected the Registrant to report it, and he confirmed that there was no evidence of this. Additionally, he would have expected a report from an IRO had a professional meeting taken place where shouting and the use of swear words or obscenities had occurred.

 

39.           TG was asked about completion of a PRF, he stated that it was usually for the attendant to complete and the Paramedic would check it over. He confirmed that if there were issues, they should be raised and resolved at the time. TG also confirmed the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to complete either the ‘Cases not requiring patient transport’ or the ‘Refusal of treatment or transport’ sections.

 

40.           TG stated that this call seemed high risk from speaking with Patient A’s father, and he considered it to be high risk to leave a patient at home if they had tried to hang themselves. He was not aware whether the call out involved thoughts of suicide or an attempted hanging.

 

41.           TG stated that his role was to fact find and his report was sent to HR. He explained that he had encountered difficulties in obtaining the transcript from calls made on 21 December 2016.

 

42.           The Registrant gave evidence on affirmation. She confirmed that she moved to LAS when she qualified in 2014 or 2015 and was employed on a relief line, so covered different stations across the area. She advised that she applied to go on a secure line where she would just go to one station, near to home. The Registrant stated that a secondment came up at St Helier and this was when she started working with Colleague A. Prior to that she had seen many of the staff from St Helier at hospitals but didn’t know them more than that.

 

43.           The Registrant believed that she and Colleague A had a good relationship with general conversation about their lives during long shifts together. She recalled having a discussion about a family friendly role with him. The Registrant was not aware of any issues between them. She stated that she had been made aware that Colleague A didn’t like to undertake the attendant role and he preferred to drive. She stated with other colleagues it was usual to split the roles and share the driving.

 

44.           The Registrant indicated that on 21 December 2016 she asked Colleague A if he would be happy to ‘attend’ and she would drive. She stated that he wasn’t too pleased, but he did it.

 

45.           When asked about the callout to Patient A on 21 December 2016, the Registrant stated that they were met on the drive by the patient’s father who was concerned for his daughter. They were made aware that it was not the first occurrence as Patient A had Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder. She stated that as they entered the house the patient was visibly upset and crying, which was audible, but she was not screaming.

 

46.           The Registrant described tapping Colleague A to get past him so she could speak with Patient A. She stated she did this to get his attention due to the lack of space to move around Colleague A to get into the living room. She stated she guided Patient A into the living room where she sat on the sofa. It had been mentioned that Patient A had issues with her husband, so she considered it was appropriate to chat female to female with her, to get her medical history and understand what had led to the escalation in her mental health. She confirmed that she did not exclude Colleague A and Patient A’s friend stayed with them at all times. The Registrant indicated that her focus was on Patient A to get her to regulate herself and calm down.

 

47.           The Registrant accounted for the discrepancies between her evidence and the account given during the internal investigation stating that it was a ‘typo’ and a summary rather than a verbatim account. The Registrant confirmed that her evidence was the correct account, and she recalled the incident well, saying “in ten years I would be able to tell you how that job went”.

 

48.           The Registrant stated that Colleague A stayed in the hallway talking to the father and mother-in-law. She denied pushing Colleague A stating that she would never physically hurt a colleague. She explained that contact is sometimes inadvertent as they work in confined spaces in close proximity. The Registrant considered that she and Colleague A worked well together during the callout and they exchanged information to support Patient A.

 

49.           The Registrant denied stating that mental health stinks. She indicated that the patient started out by saying she did not want to go to hospital. The Registrant indicated that she told Patient A that she would assess the risk to see if they could accommodate that. She explained that patient A was familiar with the process and that she already had access to support in the community. The Registrant stated that she told Patient A that if she felt it wasn’t safe to leave her at home, she would have to take her to hospital.

 

50.           The Registrant confirmed that she discussed the ‘hanging’ with Patient A and the patient stated she had thought about it but was scared of heights so wouldn’t have carried it through. The Registrant considered that Patient A had insight into her mental health. The Registrant stated that she was able to empathise with Patient A and relay her own experiences. She considered that she had built a good rapport with Patient A. The Registrant denied leaving the house for any length of time.

 

51.           The Registrant denied using the words alleged in Particular 1 stating that she would not use that language with a patient.

 

52.           In relation to the PRF, the Registrant indicated that she did not say anything to Colleague A in front of the patient and waited until they were in the ambulance to ask why he had completed the ‘Refusal to travel’ section. She indicated that Colleague A became hostile and accused her of questioning everything he did. She hoped they could resolve it, but he stated that there was a personality clash and he didn’t want to work with her. She stated that she didn’t accuse him of lying, she simply asked why he had completed that section, because so far as she was concerned, a plan had been agreed with the patient and her family which did not require Patient A being taken to hospital.

 

53.           The Registrant accepted that Patient A’s father had indicated he had seen the cord around Patient A’s neck but stated that Patient A had given a different account. She stated that she had checked Patient A’s neck and her respiratory system. The Registrant confirmed that had the relationship with Colleague A not broken down she would have expanded on the PRF to record the differing account.

 

54.           The Registrant confirmed that it was serious to take an ambulance off the road. She stated that she considered that it was important to build a good relationship with patients as it can impact on outcomes. She described how she developed a good rapport with Patient A and felt confident by the end of their time with her that it was the right outcome and the patient was safe. She denied using any inappropriate language with Patient A or abusing Colleague A physically or verbally.

 

55.           The Registrant indicated that she was surprised by Colleague A’s reaction as they had been on scene a while and she felt that they had worked together to agree a plan with Patient A which was discussed and agreed with the family. She indicated that she felt happy with the plan and the patient was safe. She stated it was not a ‘decline to travel’ as they had put a plan in place to ensure the patient was safe. The Registrant stated that she considered that Patient A would not have got any benefit from going to hospital as there were no ligature marks, no respiratory issues and she was communicating well. She indicated that Patient A was even talking about going to work the following day to distract herself and she encouraged her to take time to herself. The Registrant indicated that Patient A wanted to give her a cuddle as they were leaving.

 

56.           When asked about the racial comments, the Registrant indicated that she had not referred to the BAME community. She stated that she was not racist and had interactions with ethnic groups in her community who had taught her to cook lentil curry. She stated that she did not recall bringing up the smell of curry with Colleague A once. She indicated that she was aware from her training of how different cultures interact and she always tried to accommodate cultural differences.

 

57.           The Registrant denied accusing Colleague A of stealing and stated that had she thought that Colleague A was stealing she would have reported it.

 

58.           The Registrant denied that any kicking or hitting took place, stating that she would not hit anyone. She stated that physical contact was inevitable between colleagues when working in confined spaces such as the back of an ambulance and they may need to brush past one another.

 

59.           The Registrant denied stating ‘what would they do in their country’ or words to that effect. She stated that she came from a diverse family and is not a racist. She stated that her current role outside London requires her to risk assess patients and look at alternative pathways as an alternative to going to hospital, as this could be up to 45 minutes drive away. She indicated that she is not unprofessional and has had no complaints.

 

60.           The Registrant indicated that when they got back to the station they spoke with NT (IRO) and at that point she was not made aware of the allegations. She stated that some matters were raised by Colleague A four years later when he made his statement to the HCPC.

 

61.           The Registrant outlined the issues she had encountered which led to the offence being committed on 09 May 2017.

 

62.           The Registrant stated that she did not know why Colleague A would make up the allegations. She said the allegations coming from LAS had ‘tipped me over’, she had no other option but to resign.

 

63.           The Panel heard evidence on affirmation from MH who gave character evidence on behalf of the Registrant and his reference was admitted in evidence. He stated that he had known the Registrant since she started with South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAMB) and had been her manager initially. He confirmed that at interview he was made aware of the criminal conviction, he could not recall whether he was also made aware that she had been under investigation with LAS. It was confirmed that he was made aware of the HCPC investigation 1-2 years after the Registrant had started there.

 

64.           MH confirmed that other than a minor issue with sickness reporting when the Registrant was given a Record of Advice and Guidance (ROAG) there had been no issues in her employment that he was aware of. MH confirmed that there was a diverse workforce in the Control Centre where the Registrant works and stated that her calls would be audited. MH stated there were no public protection concerns and that the Registrant upholds proper professional standards to maintain public confidence in the profession.

 

Decision on Facts

 

65.           The Panel heard submissions from Mr Collins on behalf of the HCPC and considered the representations made by Mr Solaini on behalf of the Registrant.

 

66.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.

 

67.           The Panel received and accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ which states ‘an admission of a fact is sufficient to prove that fact’. The Panel was advised that it can find a fact proved by virtue of that admission without receiving further evidence, however it should be satisfied that the admission is unequivocal, the Registrant fully understands what the Allegation is and the implications of admitting it. The Panel was aware of the importance of it being provided with all relevant information to enable it to understand the context and seriousness of the case, so that even when facts are admitted, it can make informed decisions regarding impairment and sanction, if appropriate.

 

68.           The Panel looked at each of the particulars of the Allegation independently and in reaching its decision considered whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, assessing the oral and written evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and attaching such weight as they see fit to each piece of evidence.

 

69.           The Panel referred to the Memorandum of Conviction from West Sussex Magistrates Court dated 24 October 2017 which showed that the Registrant had been convicted of an offence of assault on 09 May 2017, contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following trial. The Panel noted that The HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Panel Rules 2003 10(d) provide:-

“where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based;”

70.           The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the fact of the conviction was found proven due to the admission of the Registrant and the Memorandum of Conviction.

 

71.           In determining whether the Registrant’s conduct was ‘racially motivated’, the Panel was reminded of the need to investigate the context and intention to determine whether or not ‘racial motivation’ is established. The Panel considered the guidance set out in Lambert Simpson v HCPC (2023) EWHC 481 (Admin).

 

72.           In weighing the evidence, the Panel was mindful that Colleague A had been under immense stress which may have meant that his evidence was incoherent and / or inconsistent in places. The Panel was able, in part, to put this down to the delay in these matters being heard. The Panel noted that some of Colleague A’s claims had become more exaggerated with time. The Panel acknowledged that Colleague A was an experienced practitioner who had never previously taken an ambulance off the road.

 

73.           The Panel was aware that there were some issues which had not been raised by Colleague A as part of the internal LAS investigation and were raised for the first time in the documents and statements provided as part of the HCPC investigation in 2020.

 

74.           The Panel acknowledged that the LAS investigation had focused entirely on whether the Registrant had acted inappropriately in the way she had dealt with Patient A, and as part of that, whether her treatment of Colleague A was unprofessional. To this extent the investigation focused on the events of 21 December 2016 only.

 

75.           The Panel considered that Colleague A had reported some concerns immediately which perhaps made those more plausible. However, the Panel noted the reason expressed by Colleague A that he hadn’t reported some issues until his witness statement for the HCPC, nearly four years after the events. Colleague A was ashamed that he had been subjected to this behaviour by the Registrant, which is why he had not reported it. Additionally, Colleague A said that in the past, as a Union Rep, he had seen ‘things gone wrong and it was pushed under the carpet’.

 

76.           The Panel considered that on the whole Colleague A was credible.

 

77.           The Panel considered that the Registrant also gave credible evidence and was consistent in her denials of the Allegations. She was able to fluidly describe the interactions between herself and Patient A.

78.           The Panel noted that the Registrant and Colleague A had been with Patient A for around 2 hours and was mindful that the issues between them would only have occurred over a fraction of this time. The PRF suggests that they were working together. It was clear that Colleague A did not agree with Patient A being left at home as he considered the call out to be more serious.

 

79.           The Panel noted that when Patient A’s father was interviewed, he had denied that he had seen any unprofessional behaviour described by Colleague A. The Panel acknowledge the possible reasons why this may have been the case. He had been interviewed by TG during the LAS investigation. The Panel accepted the reasons why TG had not attempted to speak with Patient A or other family members who had been present and noted that Mr Solaini on behalf of the Registrant had tried to obtain those people’s contact details without success. The Panel did not place much reliance upon the absence of Patient A’s father observing the behaviours alleged. The Panel acknowledged that the father of Patient A may have been distracted with concern for his daughter and was on both accounts not always present as he was going up and down the stairs.

 

80.           The Panel noted that it was agreed between the parties that Colleague A and the Registrant had been working together on 21 December 2016 and received a call to attend Patient A’s home which was reported as an attempted hanging. On arrival at the scene, they were met by Patient A’s father and after a brief conversation Colleague A followed him inside and the Registrant was last to enter the house. The LAS documentation confirms that the Registrant and Colleague A were responding to a ‘Green 2’ callout. It was also agreed that following their attendance upon Patient A the ambulance was taken off the road for the remainder of the shift.

 

Particular 1a) i is found proved

 

81.           The Panel referred itself to the witness statement of Colleague A and considered his oral evidence. The Panel noted that the comments had been reported by Colleague A in his statement on 23 December 2016 and again in his LAS interview on 31 March 2017. The Panel considered that the accounts given had been broadly consistent and that the accounts given nearer the time of the incident would be more reliable. Whilst there had been some differences in the distance Colleague A said that he was from the Registrant, the Panel concluded that on either version he would have been within earshot of the Registrant and Patient A.

 

82.           The Registrant had given evidence of discussing with Patient A the fact that if she took Patient A to hospital there may be a long wait. The Panel considered that the Registrant was at that time relatively newly qualified and may have been less professional in her dealings with patients than she may have become more recently.

 

83.           The Panel noted that there was no corroborating evidence to support either account.

 

84.           The Panel concluded that it was more plausible that the conversation took place in the way Colleague A described due to his reaction to it and the almost contemporaneous report. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Registrant had used words to that effect and considered them to be inappropriate in a professional setting. The Panel found this Particular proved.

Particular 1a) ii is found not proved

 

85.           The Panel considered the witness statement of Colleague A and his oral testimony.

 

86.           The Panel noted that these comments were not reported by Colleague A in his earlier statement made on 23 December 2016. However, words of this nature were raised by Colleague A in the LAS interview on 31 March 2017 where he says “[The Registrant] then started talking about men saying that they don’t give a fuck about you”. The Panel noted that Colleague A’s account changed significantly in the statement he made to the HCPC in 2020, which seemed to escalate the seriousness. It was stated that the Registrant said to Patient A “What will you get out of men? They only want your fanny, they’re shit anyway” or words to that effect. The Panel considered that the words used and the meaning of each account is different and that they were not close enough to be considered ‘words to that effect’. The Panel considered that Colleague A was inconsistent in the accounts which he gave, this undermined Colleague A’s credibility in relation to his recall of this part of the incident.

 

87.           The Registrant gave evidence that she had considered it appropriate to have a conversation with Patient A ‘female to female’ as she had been made aware of an issue with Patient A and her husband.

 

88.           The Panel could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the words in the Allegation, or words to that effect, had been used and this Particular is not proved.

Particular 1a) iii is found proved

 

89.           The Panel referred itself to the written witness statement of Colleague A, the LAS investigation statement made on 23 December 2016 and the LAS interview summary from 31 March 2017.

 

90.           It was clear from the evidence that Colleague A had been given a different account by Patient A’s father about the circumstances leading to the ambulance call, to that which Patient A had given the Registrant. Colleague A had been shown a dressing gown belt by Patient A’s father which he was keen for the Registrant to see. It may be that the Registrant was irritated by Colleague A’s challenge,

 

91.           There was a substantial difference of opinion as to whether Patient A had tried to hang herself or had merely thought about it. The Registrant had stated that the situation had deescalated, she had examined Patient A for signs of injury and had concluded that there was no need for Patient A to be transported to hospital.

 

92.           Whilst the Panel noted a slight change in the words reportedly used in the statements of 23 December 2016 and 31 March 2017, it considered that as the report was made almost immediately following the event, that it was more likely than not to have taken place. The Panel considered that words of this nature were inappropriate and found this Particular proved.

Particular 1a) iv is found proved

 

93.           The Panel considered the PRF as well as the written statements and oral evidence of both parties.

 

94.           It was accepted that the PRF had been mainly completed by Colleague A. There was an issue between the Registrant and Colleague A as to whether Patient A had refused to be transported to hospital or whether there was a plan in place which did not require transport to hospital. Both had differing views on the seriousness of the concern with Patient A.

 

95.           Colleague A and the Registrant gave differing accounts as to where the disagreement over the PRF took place. Colleague A was consistent in his account that the Registrant had accused him of lying.

 

96.           The Registrant stated in her oral evidence that she raised this with Colleague A in the ambulance away from Patient A and her family. This account was inconsistent with the account she gave in her response to allegations in the Registrant’s bundle, where she indicated that there was a discussion in the house before they returned to the ambulance.

 

97.           On balance the Panel preferred the account of Colleague A who was consistent in his account that the Registrant had accused him of lying. The Panel considered this to be inappropriate and very different to saying that he had recorded it incorrectly. The Panel found this Particular proved.

Particular 1a) v is found not proved

 

98.           The Panel considered the written and oral evidence of Colleague A and the Registrant.

 

99.           The Panel noted that Colleague A had not reported these comments initially on 23 December 2016 or in his interview on 31 March 2017. The comments were only mentioned by Colleague A for the first time in his statement to the HCPC in 2020 which undermines the likelihood of his recollection being accurate.

 

100.       Whilst the Panel noted at that time the Registrant had been having issues with her neighbours it has not been suggested that the neighbours were BAME.

 

101.       Colleague A acknowledged that the Registrant had not called him a ‘paki’ and had not said he smelled of curry. Even if the Registrant had said he was like her neighbours there is nothing to connect this to the smell of curry. The Panel concluded that Colleague A had joined the issues together incorrectly, perhaps due to the passage of time.

 

102.       The Panel was not satisfied on balance that there was sufficient evidence to find this Particular proven.

Particular 1a) vi is found not proved

 

103.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence and noted that Colleague A had first reported the Registrant accusing him of stealing in his LAS interview on 31 March 2017, but that very little detail was given and it was not investigated further by LAS.

 

104.       The witness statement provided to the HCPC in 2020 provides more detail.

 

105.       The Registrant was adamant that she had not accused Colleague A of stealing from patients’ homes and stated that had she believed this she would have reported it.

 

106.       The Panel was of the view that had this comment been made it would have been at the forefront of Colleague A’s mind when he made his statements on 23 December 2016 as it is so serious, it concluded that there was insufficient for it to be persuaded this comment was made at that time. The Panel could not find this Particular proven on balance.

Particular 1b) is found not proved

 

107.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence and noted the differing accounts given by Colleague A and the Registrant once they entered the house. However, it noted that it was agreed that Colleague A entered the house first with the Registrant following behind him in single file and that it was a relatively small area.

 

108.       The Panel considered it more plausible that the Registrant had tapped Colleague A to get his attention so that she could move past him to speak with Patient A.

 

109.       Colleague A’s account had changed with time. He was adamant that Patient A’s father must have seen it as he looked shocked. The Panel could not conceive how Colleague A’s description of the Registrant being in front of him and pushing him firmly to the chest could have occurred when she had been behind him. In addition, such an aggressive act would be difficult for others not to notice.

 

110.       The Panel preferred the account given by the Registrant and accordingly found this Particular not proved.

 

Particular 2 a) is found not proved

 

111.       The Panel referred itself to the written evidence and was reminded that the allegation of kicking only came to light in 2020 as part of the HCPC investigation. It was not referred to in the accounts given on 23 December 2016 or 31 March 2017. The allegation forms part of a wide pattern of alleged bullying behaviour by the Registrant towards him.

 

112.       Colleague A described in his statement it occurring between 3 and 5 times, sometimes in front of patients. He stated that the kicks did not hurt or leave marks, and, in his evidence, he stated it happened ‘many many times’. The Panel considered the accounts to be inconsistent.

 

113.       The Registrant vehemently and consistently denied the allegation.

 

114.       The Panel considered that had the kicking taken place Colleague A had ample opportunity to report it at an earlier stage. Colleague A was a union representative who confirmed that he was aware of the various ways he could report any issues with a colleague.

 

115.       The Panel was not satisfied on balance that this Particular was proved.

 

Particular 2 b) is found not proved

 

116.       The Panel reflected on the evidence it had received both in writing and orally. It considered the word ‘hit’ to be a strong word. Again, there was no evidence to support Colleague A raising this nearer the time and the first report was in his HCPC statement in 2020. Further, in his oral evidence, Colleague A introduced an additional element or example of Colleague A hitting him, suggesting that he was hit in the face with the board on which the PRF was held on 21 December 2016. This, in the Panel’s view, was another example of Colleague A introducing claims and embellishing details as time passed.

117.       The Registrant vehemently and consistently denied the allegation.

 

118.       The Panel considered that had the hitting taken place Colleague A had ample opportunity to report it at an earlier stage.

 

119.       The Panel was not satisfied on balance that this Particular was proved.

 

Particular 2 c) is found not proved

 

120.       The Panel noted that the alleged name calling was referred to in Colleague A’s witness statement. There were no references in the earlier documentation, taken as part of the LAS investigation, of this being raised.

 

121.       The Panel noted that Colleague A had stated he had overheard the Registrant using these words about him in front of NT, IRO. There was no independent evidence to support this.

 

122.       The Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence for it to be persuaded these comments were made at that time. The Panel could not find this Particular proven on balance.

Particular 2 d) is found proved

 

123.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence and noted that these allegations were supported at an early stage with Colleague A reporting them in a very specific and detailed way in his statement on 23 December 2016. Colleague A was very clear on the language used and the circumstances in which this conversation took place.

 

124.       The Registrant had acknowledged that she and Colleague A had discussed her family circumstances and her attempts to seek a ‘family friendly rota’ with management.

 

125.       The Panel considered that the nature of the comments made was rude and derogatory, it was directed towards colleagues and was inappropriate. Whilst the Panel noted that the derogatory comments were not relating to Colleague A, the Panel still considered that these comments constituted inappropriate behaviour towards Colleague A and he should not have been subjected to them.

 

126.       The Panel found that there was sufficient evidence to find this Particular proved on balance.

Particular 3 a) is found not proved

 

127.       The Panel considered the witness statement of Colleague A which was made in 2020 and his oral evidence on this point.

 

128.       Colleague A had not raised this issue in his earlier written recollections in 2016 and 2017. In his oral evidence Colleague A did not make any link to the comments about the smell of curry and patients of BAME backgrounds. He confirmed that the Registrant had stated that she could not sleep due to the smell of curry. He confirmed that the Registrant had never said that he smelled of curry.

 

129.       Colleague A was confused about the frequency with which this comment had been made, and the references to it were vague and general in nature. By his own admission Colleague A did not seek to clarify with the Registrant why the comments had been made.

 

130.       The Particular as drafted refers to the Registrant making inappropriate comments regarding ‘patients’ from BAME backgrounds. There is no evidence to support that the comments, if made, were directed towards patients. Accordingly, the Panel finds this Particular not proved.

Particular 3 b i) is found not proved

 

131.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence of Colleague A. Colleague A had not raised this issue in his earlier written recollections in 2016 and 2017, and his first complaint was raised in his statement to the HCPC in 2020.

 

132.       The Panel considered the oral evidence on this point where Colleague A described one occasion where he said this had happened. Colleague A seemed to be more concerned with the Registrant trying to persuade the parent of a child with a high temperature to take the child to hospital themselves rather than being transported in the ambulance. Colleague A indicated that he did not know why they couldn’t just take him as they were there anyway.

 

133.       The Registrant vehemently and consistently denied the allegation. She gave evidence of living and working in a multi-cultural society without any issues around racism.

 

134.       The Panel referred to paragraph 51 of Colleague A’s statement. It is clear from that the Registrant’s comment, if made, was directed towards Colleague A not speaking English in his country rather than any reference to patients of BAME backgrounds.

 

135.       Accordingly, the Panel could not be satisfied that the Particular was proved.

Particular 3 b ii) is found not proved

 

136.       The Panel considered the written and oral evidence of Colleague A. Colleague A had not raised this issue in his earlier written recollections in 2016 and 2017, and his first complaint was raised in his statement to the HCPC in 2020.

 

137.       The Panel considered that Colleague A was aware of the ways in which he could report such behaviour, which was serious in nature, and had not done so. Due to the delay in reporting, and the vague evidence given in this regard, the Panel could not be satisfied on balance that these comments were made. Accordingly, this Particular was found not proved.

Particular 3 b iii) is found not proved

 

138.       For the reasons set out above in paragraphs 141 and 142 the Panel could not be satisfied that this Particular was proved.

Particular 4 is found proved

 

139.       The Registrant admitted the factual particulars of 4 set out above.

 

140.       The Panel considered the Memorandum of Conviction as proof of the fact of the conviction.

 

141.       The Panel was satisfied that the factual particular of the Allegation was admitted unequivocally, the Registrant was represented and that there was sufficient evidence before it to prove Particular 4 on the balance of probabilities.

 

142.       The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the fact of the conviction was found proven due to the admission of the Registrant and the Memorandum of Conviction.

Particular 5 is found not proved

 

143.       This Particular relies upon Particulars 1 a) v and/or 3 being found proved. They were not and accordingly this Particular is not proved.

 

Abuse of Process Argument

 

144.       Whilst the Panel was deliberating on the facts it was alerted to the fact that Mr Solaini wished to make an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that there had been an abuse of process such that it was impossible for the Registrant to have a fair hearing, and that continuing with the hearing would undermine public confidence in the regulator as there was unlikely to be a finding of current impairment.

 

145.       The Panel heard from Mr Solaini on the issue of whether it should permit the application at such a late stage in the proceedings.

 

146.       Mr Solaini applied to make his application on the basis that he had not been aware of the Practice Note on ‘Abuse of Process’ which was only published in August 2025. He referred to the significant delay in the proceedings being brought to a final hearing, and the loss of evidence which may have impacted upon the Registrant’s ability to defend her position. Specifically, Mr Solaini referred to the absence of the recording of the call to the control room from Colleague A, which he was told did not exist. However, TG in his oral evidence had stated that such recordings were generally kept for 25 years.

 

147.       Mr Solaini also referred to the Registrant’s request for the contact details of Patient A and her family which had not been forthcoming despite a disclosure direction. He suggested that the HCPC were guilty of malfeasance in failing to disclose this evidence which would cast doubt on the credibility of Colleague A.

 

148.       Mr Collins on behalf of the HCPC opposed the application on the basis that the factual circumstances of the hearing had not given rise to any ground upon which the application could be heard mid-way through the final hearing.

 

149.       On behalf of the HCPC he refuted any suggestion of malfeasance and stated that the HCPC had utilised their powers under Article 25 of the Health Professions Order to try to obtain disclosure, which they were advised was not available.

 

150.       Mr Collins submitted that the Panel could factor in the delay and the missing evidence in determining whether the evidence supports the allegations, in balancing the fairness to the parties. Mr Collins reminded the Panel of its duty to proceed with matters expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so and invited the Panel to consider that such an application would cause inevitable delay whilst preparations were made to hear the application.

 

151.       Mr Collins invited the Panel to conclude that there was no real basis for the late application at a stage in the proceedings where the evidence had been concluded and the Panel was considering its findings.

 

152.       The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Abuse of Process’ and was reminded that whilst the Practice Note was relatively new the legal principle as not.

 

153.       The Panel was mindful that the power to stay a case on the grounds that there had been an abuse of process was rarely exercised and there was a high bar to be met.

 

154.       The Panel was aware that it was usual for such applications to be made at a preliminary stage and it considered whether the circumstances which gave rise to the application had arisen in the course of the hearing or whether they were known at the outset.

 

155.       The Panel concluded that it was not appropriate to permit an abuse argument to be made on behalf of the Registrant at this stage in the proceedings, and that there had been no new information which had arisen during the course of the hearing which would justify the late application. Accordingly, the request for a stay to make an abuse of process application was refused.

 

Decision on Grounds

156.       The Panel next went on to consider whether or not the facts admitted and found proved amounted to misconduct.

 

157.       The Registrant was present when the Panel heard submissions from Mr Smith and Mr Solaini on grounds and impairment.

 

158.       The Panel heard submissions from Mr Smith who drew the Panel’s attention to the factors affecting seriousness and those which he submitted were aggravating and mitigating features.

 

159.       The Panel also heard submissions from Mr Solaini who invited the Panel to consider that the conduct did not amount to serious professional misconduct as it was over a short time period when the Registrant was in a high-pressure environment and resulted in no patient harm. Mr Solaini acknowledged that the conduct placed the Registrant in breach of some of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

 

160.       The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was referred to Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 where the Privy Council defined “misconduct” as “a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

 

161.       The Panel was also referred to Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC (Admin) and Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin).

 

162.       The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and Standards 2016 and found that the facts found proved amounted to breaches of standards:-

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 and carers, involving them, where appropriate, in decisions about the care, treatment or other services to be provided.

1.3 You must encourage and help service users, where appropriate, to maintain their own health and well-being, and support them so they can make informed decisions.

2.1 You must be polite and considerate.

2.3 You must give service users and carers the information they want or need, in a way they can understand.

2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.

6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

 

163.       In considering Particular 1 a) i, the Panel considered that the comments made by the Registrant to Patient A, in relation to the mental health services available to her, would undermine Patient A and her family’s confidence in those services, should they have been required on that, or any future, occasion. The Panel was of the view that Patient A was vulnerable by virtue of her mental health crisis and her desire to take her own life, and the Registrant did not act in a way which supported Patient A in making an informed decision on her treatment and care.

 

164.       The Registrant’s comments did not involve Patient A in the decision-making process, included biased opinions on mental health services, and did not demonstrate that the Registrant was working in partnership with Patient A in identifying an appropriate treatment option. Instead, they resulted in an avenue, which could have supported Patient A in her time of crisis, being closed off. In relation to this Particular the Panel found Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.3 and 6.1 to have been breached.

 

165.       In considering Particulars 1 a) iii) and iv) together, the Panel considered that the way in which the Registrant had spoken with Colleague A was both inappropriate and unprofessional in the context of Colleague A seeking to promote what he perceived to be the best treatment for Patient A. By engaging in this behaviour, the Panel found the Registrant was in breach of Standards 2.5 and 6.1. The evidence from Colleague A demonstrated that he was caused harm as a result of the conduct, he was visibly upset in his evidence, and as a result of the Registrant’s conduct an ambulance was taken out of service, resulting in a temporary reduction in the services of a Paramedic to the wider public, which had the potential to place service users at a risk of harm.

 

166.       In considering Particular 2d the Panel determined that the Registrant was in breach of Standard 2.5 as her actions undermined the collegiate nature of the job.

 

167.       The Panel next looked at Particular 4 and was of the view that a conviction of this nature would bring the Paramedic profession into disrepute as Paramedics should ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust in them and confidence in the profession as a whole. The public is entitled to expect that a HCPC registered professional would not act in a way which may cause harm to a member of the public. Accordingly, the Registrant is in breach of Standard 9.1.

 

168.       In considering whether the conduct admitted and found proven represented a serious departure from the standards expected, the Panel was of the view that it did. There was a risk of harm involved in the conduct towards Patient A, as she was not enabled by the Registrant to make an informed decision on her treatment and care. Patient A was in a vulnerable state after an attempt to take her life, and the Registrant’s comments on mental health services may have put Patient A off seeking support in the future, or undermine any support being offered to her. On the Registrant’s own version, she accepted that her conduct may have been as a result of a misguided attempt to build rapport with Patient A. The Panel found that the language used fell far short of what the public should be entitled to expect of a HCPC registered Paramedic.

 

169.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particular 1 a) i fell far below the standard expected. The language was dismissive and unprofessional and fellow practitioners would consider it to be deplorable. The Panel concluded that the conduct within this Particular amounted to serious professional misconduct.

 

170.       In relation to Particulars 1 a) iii and iv, the Panel considered the language to be inappropriate in a professional relationship, culminating in Colleague A asking for the ambulance to be taken off the road as they could no longer work together. The Panel was mindful that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is likely to have an adverse effect not only on the individuals to whom it is directed, but also the collaborative and collegiate culture that is the foundation for the provision of safe and effective care.

 

171.       To accuse a professional colleague of lying is a strong allegation and one which impacted greatly on the professional working relationship, to the extent that there was a complete breakdown in that relationship. There was no justification for the way the Registrant spoke to Colleague A, and she may have used her seniority to be dismissive of Colleague A’s professional opinion at a time when he had Patient A’s best interests at heart. Even if she disagreed with his views, she could have expressed that in a more professional and appropriate manner.

 

172.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 1 a) iii and iv to fall far below the standards expected of a HCPC registered professional. The language was severe and unprofessional and fellow practitioners would consider it to be deplorable. The Panel concluded that the conduct within these Particulars amounts to serious professional misconduct.

 

173.       In relation to Particular 2d the Panel found that the derogatory remarks made between two work colleagues were not of such nature that they would amount to serious professional misconduct. Whilst it was inappropriate and unprofessional, it would not be regarded as deplorable by fellow professionals in the context of a private conversation where colleagues should be permitted to vent their thoughts.

 

174.       In relation to Particular 4 the Panel was of the view that the conduct which led to the conviction reached the high bar necessary to satisfy the threshold of serious professional misconduct. Service users and members of the public are entitled to expect that Paramedics will act in such a way within their professional and private lives which safeguards them rather than cause a risk of harm. The behaviour demonstrates an inability on the part of the Registrant to manage herself to prevent violent outbursts during periods of stress, and the conduct is not what the public would expect of a healthcare professional whose job is to care for and help people. In addition, the Panel was of the view that fellow professionals would find the conduct which led to the conviction to be deplorable. The Panel concluded that the conduct within this Particular amounted to serious professional misconduct.

 

175.       To conclude, the Panel was of the view that the findings collectively establish that the Registrant acted in such a way that her conduct fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances, and what the public would expect of a HCPC registered Paramedic. The concerns have some similarities and provide evidence of attitudinal issues, being disrespectful towards others, and being unable to regulate herself during periods of stress. Additionally, fellow professionals would find the conduct deplorable. The Panel determined that the facts found proved did amount to serious professional misconduct on the Registrant’s part.

 

Decision on Impairment

176.       Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that, having found the facts proved, the Panel should find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

 

177.       In relation to the personal component, it was stated that there was little evidence of insight or remediation to mitigate any risk of repetition.

 

178.       Mr Smith invited the Panel to consider that the misconduct found proven was so serious that finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired would undermine both public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

 

179.       Mr Solaini invited the Panel to consider that the absence of any repetition of the behaviour in over nine years was sufficient evidence of remediation, that there was no ongoing risk, and submitted that a finding of impairment was neither necessary nor proportionate.

 

180.       The Panel heard nothing further from the Registrant at the impairment stage and received no updated reflections following its findings of fact.

 

181.       The Panel received and accepted legal advice and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’.

 

182.       The Panel considered the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) which adopted and clarified the test for impairment of fitness to practise, which was formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Report of the Shipman Inquiry with reference to the following questions:-

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 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; and/or

d.       Has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

 

183.       The Panel found limbs a, b, and c of the test to be engaged. It was of the view that whilst there was no evidence of direct service user harm, the Registrant’s conduct had the potential to cause harm to Patient A as she was discouraged from seeking support from mental health services at a time of crisis. Additionally, the ambulance was taken out of service for a period of time following the breakdown in the relationship between the Registrant and Colleague A, which also led to both the Registrant and Colleague A being temporarily unavailable to provide paramedic response.

 

184.       The Panel found that the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession, to promote and protect the interests of service users, and to communicate effectively. Her actions would be considered deplorable by fellow professionals, and she had brought the profession into disrepute by her actions. Due to the fact that the Registrant had not provided any further evidence or updated reflections following the findings of fact, the Panel had little evidence before it that she had acknowledged her shortcomings, had undertaken remedial action or reflected to ensure that the conduct would not be repeated in the future.

 

185.       The Panel considered the factors affecting the seriousness of the concerns. The Panel reminded itself of the reasons why it had found the facts proven and was of the view that:-

·       There were a number of standards breached such that there was a significant departure from the standards expected of a professional and the impact on public confidence in the profession had been undermined.

·       The conduct was repeated, impacting a number of people and had the potential to place service users, colleagues and members of the public at risk of harm.

·       The conduct involved a vulnerable service user going through a mental health crisis and had the potential to impact on the delivery of care and safe practice.

·       The Registrant may have abused her position of seniority in the way she dealt with Colleague A.

·       There was little evidence of any insight, remediation, remorse or reflection from the Registrant to mitigate the risk of repetition.

186.       In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public component and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time.

 

187.        In considering the personal component, the Panel found that the conduct was remediable although it acknowledged that attitudinal and behaviour issues can be more difficult to remediate. The Panel was concerned that there had been no acceptance by the Registrant that the conduct occurred, how this would impact public confidence in the profession or how it might be perceived by her colleagues. Additionally, at this time there was no evidence of fully developed insight or remediation on the part of the Registrant, and therefore the Panel found that there was a risk of repetition in the future.

 

188.       The Panel found that the Registrant had acted inappropriately towards a colleague, a service user, and a neighbour on two distinct occasions within a relatively short time period.There was no acceptance of the conduct by the Registrant such that the Panel could be satisfied that she had demonstrated insight into her behaviour, to rule out the risk of future repetition.

 

189.       The Panel acknowledged that there was no evidence that the conduct had been repeated in over nine years with the Registrant remaining in employment as a Paramedic within a call centre, which would involve making decisions at speed under pressure and providing advice. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant’s calls were audited which demonstrated that the Registrant had used professional communication with both colleagues and service users, although it noted that the audits provided were from 2018. The Panel was encouraged by the Registrant’s evidence at the facts stage of how she would interact with Patient A should she be in a similar position now. The Panel reviewed the testimonials that contained positive comments regarding the Registrant, but noted that the testimonials were historic being from 2020 or prior and none indicated that they were aware of the regulatory proceedings. There were two testimonials from the Registrant’s employer from 2024 indicating that they were aware of the current regulatory proceedings and attested to the Registrant’s satisfactory employment.

 

190.       From this the Panel could infer that the Registrant had taken some steps to mitigate the risk of her personal stressors resulting in conduct similar to that found proven, but it could not entirely rule out the risk of repetition for the reasons explained below.

 

191.       The Panel considered the reflective piece to be outdated, limited to the conviction and the remediation to be incomplete. The Registrant has not fully acknowledged her failings, or shown insight into her actions, and has continued to deny making contact with her neighbour despite the finding of the criminal court.

 

192.       There were similarities in the Registrant’s behaviour at that time involving volatile, unprofessional and inappropriate communication with multiple people, demonstrating an inability of the Registrant to regulate herself in a stressful situation.

 

193.       There was no evidence before the Panel of how the Registrant had dealt with conflict when it has arisen subsequently in her personal or professional life, or how she would regulate herself in the future to avoid a repetition of the conduct. There was also no positive evidence advanced that the Registrant had reflected on her conduct or taken remedial action, which would mitigate the risk of repetition. The Panel considered that given the three month gap since the finding of facts by the Panel, there could have been an updated and comprehensive reflection. In the significant amount of time since the incidents arose, the Registrant could have arranged attendance at conflict resolution or anger management courses, sought support or undertaken education and training. In the absence of anything positive advanced from the Registrant, the Panel considered that there remained a real risk that the conduct would be repeated in the future should the Registrant find herself under similar personal stressors.

 

194.       The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired.

 

195.       The Panel next considered the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues’. The public is entitled to expect registrants to act with decency and integrity.

 

196.       Due to the lack of evidence that the Registrant has developed insight and remediated such that there was no likelihood of the conduct being repeated, there is a future risk of repetition which places the public at a risk of harm from the Registrant.

 

197.       The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct and fell far short of what would be expected of a professional. The misconduct found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

 

198.       The Panel found that the misconduct was so serious that the public interest demands a finding of impairment. On any view, the findings are serious and would cause concern to the public if there was no finding of impairment. It is not acceptable for a registered health care professional to assault anyone, or to communicate with colleagues and patients in a manner which undermines confidence.

 

199.       The Panel found that the Registrant had breached a number of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, and had failed to act in accordance with fundamental tenets of the profession, which brings the profession into disrepute. The regulatory process is in place to ensure professional standards are maintained and to ensure the public has confidence in the profession and its regulation.

 

200.       The Panel was satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

 

201.       The Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

 

Decision on Sanction

 

202.       Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC made representations on sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction and left this as a matter of judgement for the Panel.

 

203.       The Registrant was not present for this part of the hearing. Mr Solaini on behalf of the Registrant submitted that the Registrant recognised the seriousness of the findings and he invited the Panel to impose a sanction that was proportionate not punitive.

 

204.       Mr Solaini referred specifically to a Caution Order or a Conditions of Practice Order as being appropriate in the circumstances of the case as the Registrant had remained in professional practice without restriction for a number of years since these issues arose. 

 

205.       The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy dated 02 March 2026 and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of any sanction is to protect the public and that it should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

 

206.       The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction. A sanction should never be imposed with the intention of punishing a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed, if required, to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. It being the case that a finding that an allegation is well founded does not of itself require the imposition of a sanction, the first decision to be made is whether the particular circumstances of this case require a sanction.

 

207.       The Panel was aware that if a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in ascending order of gravity until one that sufficiently addresses the regulatory aims just identified is reached. Once the Panel reached a tentative view that an appropriate sanction had been identified, it then considered the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addressed the aims of a sanction. The Panel also acknowledged that it must be satisfied that the sanction is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

 

208.       The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. The Panel recognised that sanctions can be punitive in character and effect.

 

209.       The Panel referred itself to the factors affecting seriousness and considered the findings were serious as:-

·       They involved a particularly vulnerable patient who was going through a severe mental health crisis;

·       There was the potential for service user harm;

·       There was a failure to work in partnership with Colleague A;

·       The Registrant had breached multiple Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics; and

·       The conviction was for an offence of violence.

 

210.       The Panel was mindful that the sentence passed by the criminal courts was not a definitive guide in determining the seriousness of the offence.

 

211.       The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s culpability in relation to the Particulars found proven. In considering Particular 1 a) i the Panel was of the view that the Registrant did not act with bad intentions. The comments were made within the context of a lengthy conversation when the Registrant was intending to guide Patient A out of her mental health crisis. However, the words used were inappropriate and unprofessional and delivered in a way which had the potential to cause harm. The Registrant must be accountable for her actions.

 

212.       In considering Particulars 1 a) iii and iv the Panel reminded itself that the Registrant was the more senior clinician and was in a position where she should have acted to ensure that a professional working relationship was maintained. The Registrant did not demonstrate good leadership skills and was unprofessional in managing a difference of opinion with her colleague which could have been resolved with a rational discussion. Whilst the Panel was of the view that the Registrant was not intentionally malicious, she behaved in a way where she was unable to manage herself, which demonstrated a total disregard for the impact of her actions on Colleague A.

 

213.       The Panel was mindful that the fact of the conviction was admitted by the Registrant, although the Registrant did not appear to acknowledge the assault itself occurred. This incident provides further evidence of an inability on the part of the Registrant to control her reactions in a stressful situation. The Registrant appears to have directed her anger towards a male filming the incident when her issues were with her neighbour. The Registrant made a positive decision to become involved in the fracas.

 

214.       The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-

·       The events occurred on two occasions within a short time period;

·       There has been limited reflection and remorse and only in relation to the conviction.

215.       The Panel took account of the significant time lapse of over nine years since the incidents occurred without any repetition, the admission in relation to the conviction.

 

216.       The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-

·       The lack of fully developed insight;

·       The lack of work undertaken to effect full remediation;

·       The potential for service user harm;

·        The vulnerability of Patient A who was in mental health crisis.

 

217.       In identifying the category of ‘serious cases’, the Panel noted that there was a failure to work in partnership and the Registrant may have abused her position of seniority in the way she dealt with Colleague A.

 

218.       The Panel considered that the Registrant had been afforded a very long period of time since the incidents occurred to provide evidence to satisfy it that she had addressed the concerns sufficiently through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement, yet no such evidence was available.

 

219.       The Panel considered that the lack of action taken by the Registrant over the last nine years constituted a feature which the Panel took into account in its assessment of the seriousness of the concerns, as this was a factor in determining that there remained a risk of repetition. This inaction in demonstrating full remediation and insight outweighs the length of time which has passed during which there was no evidence of repetition.

 

220.       The Panel did not think that the matter could be concluded with either no order or a caution. It did not consider these to be appropriate sanctions due to the serious nature of the concerns raised, in particular, there is a risk of repetition due to the lack of any evidence of insight or remediation by the Registrant. Additionally, these sanctions would not be sufficient to satisfy the wider public interest.

 

221.       The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order and the circumstances in which it might be an appropriate sanction. The Panel considered paragraph 153 of the Sanctions Policy which states:-

‘A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

   • the registrant has insight;

   • the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed;

• there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the registrant from remediating;

• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;

   • the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;

• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and

• a panel is satisfied that a registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm’.

 

222.       The Panel took a provisional view that the concerns found proven were capable of remediation and full insight to reduce the risk of repetition. The Panel had confidence that it could formulate appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions, that the Registrant would comply with any conditions it imposed due to her engagement in the regulatory proceedings thus far, and that it would not be exposing service users to the risk of harm.

 

223.       The Panel went on to consider a Suspension Order and considered that this would be disproportionate. The concerns can be adequately addressed with conditions of practice and would enable the Registrant to continue working taking into account the fact that she has continued to work in a registered role for over nine years without any interim restriction on her practice. The Panel did not consider that the circumstances of this case were compatible with the criteria set out for when a Suspension Order might be appropriate.

 

224.       The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would be adequate to protect the public and mark the public interest in this case and that it was the most proportionate Order.

 

225.       The Panel considered the time for the Registrant to undertake all that was required of her was a period of 9 months. This would afford time for the Registrant to demonstrate at the review hearing that she had fully remediated and developed insight.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for 9

months from the date that this Order comes into effect (“the Operative Date”),

you, Chelsea Rutledge, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1.          Within 4 months of the Operative Date you must:

A.        satisfactorily complete courses on:-

                                      i.          anger management / conflict resolution;

                                    ii.          professional behaviour / effective communication within the workplace; and

B.        forward a copy of your results to the HCPC within seven days of receiving them.

2.          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 Operative Date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

3.          You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the following areas, reflect on what you have learned and how you would utilise that knowledge in practice:

A.         Effective and professional communication within the workplace;

B.         Anger management and conflict resolution

C.         Develop insight and reflection into the findings of the Panel, including the seriousness of the concerns, the impact on those involved as well as the wider public, and what steps you have taken to ensure the conduct is not repeated.

4.          Within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

5.          You must meet with your supervisor every 2 months to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6.          You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan, together with information about your current employment by way of testimonial.

7.          You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing occasions when you have encountered conflict and detail how you dealt with and resolved the conflict in your professional or personal life, and must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC every 2 months or confirm that there have been no such occasions in that period, the first profile or confirmation to be provided within 3 months of the Operative Date.

8.          You must invite your workplace supervisor to sign off your reflective practice profile and provide feedback on the occasions you have managed conflict.

9.          You must provide to the HCPC within 6 months of the Operative Date copies of any workplace audits of the cases you have handled while subject to these conditions.

10.       You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

A.         any patient safety incident you are involved in;

B.          any investigation started against you; and

C.         any disciplinary proceedings taken against you.

11.       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 to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

C.             any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

D.             any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training;

12.       You must allow the HCPC to share, as necessary, details about your performance, compliance with, and/or progress under these conditions with:

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 to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

C. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

D. any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training;

E. [REDACTED]

   F. [REDACTED]

 

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

 

Interim Order

Application

1.              Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Panel should consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month Interim Conditions of Practice Order on the Registrant’s registration reflecting the conditions imposed within the sanction. He submitted that such an order was necessary to protect the public and in the wider public interest. Additionally, he sought to persuade the Panel that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.              The Registrant was not present at this stage of the proceedings. Mr Solaini on behalf of the Registrant submitted to the Panel that an interim restriction would be unduly onerous for the Registrant, who would, in the event of an appeal being lodged would have completed the conditions on her practice before the appeal was heard.

 

Decision

3.              The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

 

4.              The Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an Interim Order application.

 

5.              The Panel was mindful that once it reaches a final decision in respect of the substantive allegation the Registrant would not be subject to any practice restrictions unless an interim order is imposed, as a sanction order does not come into effect until either the expiry of the appeal period, or if there is an appeal, the determination of that appeal.

 

6.              The Panel was aware that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an interim order, particularly when the Panel has made a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

 

7.              The Panel paid careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’, which offers guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. The guidance states that Registrants should be made aware of the potential for an interim order to be imposed on their registration after the Panel has made a substantive order and should be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of an interim order.

 

8.              The Panel recognised that its power to impose an interim order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Conditions of Practice Order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings and public interest concerns if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction. The Panel considered that in light of its findings it would be perverse not to impose an interim restriction on the Registrant’s practise.

 

9.              The Panel decided to impose an Interim Conditions of Practice Order, to mirror the conditions imposed as a sanction, with immediate effect, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was necessary to protect the public and in the public interest to maintain confidence in the profession and this regulatory process.

10.           The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.

 

The Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect 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 Chelsea Rutledge

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
19/05/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Conditions of Practice
26/01/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard
09/01/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned