Mr Philip L Shaw

: Hearing aid dispenser

: HAD01326

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 20/03/2017 End: 17:00 29/03/2017

: Health and Care Professions Council, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Suspended

Allegation

Whilst registered as a Hearing Aid Dispenser:
1. You provided a Curriculum Vitae (CV) to Worthing Hospital Audiology Department that stated you attended clinical training with Oticon in relation to Zest Applications (hearing aid prescription) in April 2010, when this was not the case.
2. Whilst working as a Locum Audiologist with Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, you:
A. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User A on 8 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
iii. Use open fit adaptors when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iv. Fit the appropriate size dome/s
B. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User B on 8 May 2014, did not:
i. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
ii. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
iv. provide appropriate after care instructions
C. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User C on 9 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
D. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User D on 13 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Fit the appropriate size dome/s
iii. Use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest and/ or Synergy hearing aid
iv. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
E. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User E on 19 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Communicate appropriately
F. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User F on 19 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
ii. Communicate appropriately
iii. Activate the Volume Control (VC) on the hearing aid
iv. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
v. Fit the appropriate size dome/s
vi. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
vii. Despite a recommendation from a previous audiologist:
(1) Fit a hearing aid in the left ear
(2) Record your reasons for not fitting a hearing aid in the left ear
G. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User G on 20 May 2014, did not:
i. use open fit adaptors when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
ii. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
iii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
iv. follow a previous audiologist’s assessment in that you initially fitted Service User G with open fitting hearing aids
v. make accurate notes in that you recorded that you fitted 2112 moulds when you had fitted 2109 moulds
H. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User H on 21 May 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Program the hearing aid to the correct levels and/or settings
I. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User I on 21 May 2014, did not:
i. Program hearing aids to the correct levels and/or settings
ii. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
J. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User J on 7 June 2014, did not:
i. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
ii. Fit the tubing to the mould and hearing aid
iii. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
K. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User K on 9 May 2014, did not:
i. Fit the appropriate size dome/s
ii. Use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Zest open fit hearing aid
iii. Trim the retention hook adequately or at all
L. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User L on 14 May 2014 did not:
i. Communicate appropriately
ii. Fit the appropriate size dome/s and/or fit the retention hooks appropriately
iii. Provide appropriate aftercare instructions
iv. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
v. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of hearing aid
M. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User M on 15 May 2014, did not:
i. Communicate appropriately
ii. Fit the moulds appropriately
iii. Adjust and/or fine tune the volume of hearing aid and/or schedule a further appointment for this to be done
iv. use an open fit adaptor when fitting a Synergy open fit hearing aid
v. Program hearing aids to the correct levels and/or settings
N. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User N on 15 May 2014 did not adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
O. Whilst providing clinical treatment to Service User O on 20 June 2014 did not
i. carry out reassessment appropriately and/or
ii. adjust and/or fine tune the volume of the hearing aid
3. You provided a CV to Yeovil District Hospital on 24 June 2014 through Alexander Leigh Recruitment Agency that stated that you were employed by Yeovil District Hospital as a Locum Audiologist from October 2011 until December 2011, when this was not the case.
4. Your actions described in paragraphs 1 and 3 were dishonest.
5. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 4 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
6. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters:
Service of Notice
1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the notice of hearing by a letter sent to the Registrant’s registered address dated 13 January 2017.
Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant
2. Ms Sharpe made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She referred the Panel to the submissions and documents the Registrant has provided to the Panel and submitted that he is not prejudiced by the hearing proceeding in his absence. She also referred the Panel to an e-mail from the Registrant dated 30 January 2017 which states “…I would re-iterate my comments of 26th August 2016: 1) I shall not be attending the meeting. 2) I shall not be represented at the meeting. 3) I shall not be calling any witnesses. 4). I shall be grateful if you would use my previous correspondence in my defence….”. Ms Sharpe further submitted that the Allegation dates back to 2014 and that it is in the public interest that the matter is concluded without delay.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and applied the guidance in the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel exercised its discretion with the utmost care and caution.

4. The Panel noted the Registrant’s clear and consistent position that he will not attend the hearing. He expects the hearing to proceed in his absence and he has waived his right to attend. He has not made an application for an adjournment of the hearing, and in the Panel’s view there is little prospect that an adjournment would secure his attendance. Although the Registrant may be prejudiced by not attending the hearing, the Panel decided that his interests were outweighed by the public interest in an expeditious disposal of the case.
Application to hear part of the case in private
5. Ms Sharpe made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private. Her application was limited to the preliminary matters and to her explanation of the details of the health of witnesses and individuals who would not be called to give evidence.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and decided that part of the case should be heard in private in order to protect the private life of the witnesses and individuals concerned. This decision was limited to the detailed health information.
Application for witness to give evidence by telephone
7. Ms Sharpe made an application for witness AM to give evidence by telephone. This application was on the grounds of AM’s ill health.

8. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided to exercise its discretion and allow the evidence of AM to be given by telephone. The Panel decided that there was no unfairness to the Registrant who is not present to cross-examine the witness, and that it was appropriate for the evidence to be heard by telephone because AM was unable to attend the hearing due to health reasons.

Witness not called to give evidence
9. Ms Sharpe informed the Panel that the HCPC would not call witness CW due to her ill-health and referred the Panel to the content of the witness statement of CS, a Legal Assistant of Kingsley Napley solicitors. CS conducted a telephone interview with CW on 19 October 2015 and drafted a witness statement based on the information provided by CW. CC, an HCPC witness, provided information to Kingsley Napley that CW was away on long term sick leave. On 30 January 2017 CS spoke to CC to obtain further information about CW’s situation. CC explained that CW remained on long term sickness absence. CC spoke to CW about the HCPC investigation, and CW said that she had no recollection of the relevant events or the investigation.
Application to amend the Allegation
10. Ms Sharpe made an application to amend particular 3 of the Allegation to correct a drafting mistake. The date should be 24 June 2014 rather than 24 June 2015. Ms Sharpe submitted that the proposed amendment did not prejudice the Registrant.

11. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided that the proposed amendment did not prejudice the Registrant as it does not change the substance of the particular. The Panel noted that the correct date, shown in the relevant documentation, is 24 June 2014. The Panel therefore decided that the amendment is appropriate and exercised its discretion to allow the amendment.
Hearsay evidence – Witness CC
12. The Panel considered, as a preliminary issue, whether it should admit the evidence of CC, the Audiology Manager at Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”). Ms Sharpe acknowledged that large parts of CC’s witness statement are based entirely on documents and that CC was not the author of those documents.

13. In 2014 JJ was the Joint Audiology Manager at the Trust and she worked alongside CC. JJ was involved in investigating matters arising from the Registrant’s work at the Trust, and was involved in the preparation of some of the documents which are referred to in the statement of CC. Ms Sharpe explained that a decision was made by Kingsley Napley to call CC to give evidence rather than JJ for pragmatic reasons. JJ has retired and no longer has access to the relevant documents. CC remains employed by the Trust. After JJ’s retirement CC took over the process of making a referral to the HCPC. CC’s referral to the HCPC included three appendices which are exhibits 1-3 of the HCPC bundle.

14. Ms Sharpe explained that exhibit 4, which is the basis of CC’s evidence relating to the service users, was compiled by an Assistant Audiologist, AK. AK had been asked by CC to identify randomly 20 service users who had been seen by the Registrant and print their records from Practice Navigator, a computer information system which holds service user records. For each of the 20 service users, she copied the note made by the Registrant and the note made by the Audiologist who saw the service user on a follow up visit, and pasted this into a Word document. Ms Sharpe stated that CC checked the information extracted by AK against the records stored in Practice Navigator.

15. Ms Sharpe stated that a number of follow up visits were undertaken by RV, an Audiologist employed by the Trust. RV had been on long term sickness absence and is no longer employed by the Trust. RV is not an HCPC witness. It is the notes of her follow up appointments that CC refers to in her statement.

16. Ms Sharpe submitted that the Panel should admit CC’s evidence. She acknowledged that the majority of the statement is hearsay evidence and that this would be a factor for the Panel to consider when deciding the weight to give to the evidence.

17. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that it is not a routine matter to admit hearsay evidence and the Panel should carry out a careful balancing exercise. The Panel took into account the contents of the Registrant’s written submissions including the fact that he had not objected to the admissibility of any evidence. The Panel considered carefully the source of the documents on which the evidence of CC is based. The Panel decided that CC’s involvement with the documents exhibited to her statement was not so remote that it was unfair or inappropriate to admit the evidence. Although CC was not the author of exhibits 1-3, they were exhibited to the referral she made to the HCPC. The Panel requested a copy of this referral document and noted that it referred to appendixes 1 – 3 that had been exhibited. The Panel was satisfied that CC’s evidence relating to the service users (referred to in Exhibit 4) can be tested, particularly because she checked the information against the records stored in Practice Navigator. The Panel decided to admit the hearsay evidence of CC and to give that evidence the weight it considered appropriate.
Background:
18. The Registrant was employed as a Locum Audiologist by the Trust based at Worthing Hospital from 8 May 2014 to 23 May 2014. The Registrant was engaged as part of the “waiting list initiative”, and his primary duty was to provide and fit hearing aids as required. The hearing aids fitted by the Registrant were supplied by a manufacturer called Oticon and were either Zest or Synergy models. The Synergy model was an upgrade to the Zest model.

19. The Trust was provided with a copy of the Registrant’s CV prior to his appointment as a Locum Audiologist. In this CV he lists the clinical training he has undertaken. The list includes “Oticon Zest applications” in April 2010.

20. The Registrant saw Service User E for a hearing aid fitting on 19 May 2014. Service User E left the appointment without the hearing aid being fitted. The Registrant did not report the incident, but it was picked up in the notes and followed up by an Audiologist, HL, who telephoned Service User E. Service User E complained about a number of matters, including a loud whistling sound from the hearing aid. An appointment was made for Service User E to see HL.

21. On 19 May 2014, an Audiologist reviewed a service user and reported that the Registrant had not correctly fitted an Oticon hearing aid because he had not used a small device called an “open fit adaptor”. Both the Zest and Synergy Oticon models can be either “open fit” where an appropriate adapter is necessary or fitted with ear moulds which are custom made for each patient. An open fit hearing aid comprises: the hearing aid itself which contains the microphone and batteries; a dome which fits inside the ear; and a corda which is a thin tube connecting the dome to the hearing aid. The open fit adapter is used to connect the corda to the hearing aid. This essential adaptor enables the correct attachment of the corda.

22. On 20 May 2014 JJ spoke to the Registrant and asked him about the fitting of open fit hearing aids. JJ made a handwritten note, recording that the Registrant accepted that he did not use an adaptor. The note records that the Registrant demonstrated how he inserted the corda directly into the hearing aid and that JJ showed the Registrant how to use the open fit adaptor.

23. While the Registrant was working at the Trust he saw 94 service users. Some of the 94 service users reported that they were experiencing problems in relation to their hearing aid fitted by the Registrant. All the service users seen by the Registrant were provided with an opportunity for a follow up appointment with a different Audiologist. The Audiologists who reviewed the service users seen by the Registrant included RV, HL, CH, AM and CW.

24. CM is a clinical scientist employed in the Audiology Department of Yeovil District Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“Yeovil”). On 24 June 2014 she received an e-mail from a recruitment agency offering the services of the Registrant. The CV of the Registrant stated that he worked for Yeovil from October 2011 to December 2011. CM reported that the CV is incorrect in this respect because the Registrant worked at Yeovil for three days as a locum from 30 May 2012 to 1 June 2012, and did not work for Yeovil between October 2011 and December 2011.
Decision on Facts:
25. The Panel carefully read and considered the documents in the HCPC exhibits bundle. The Panel heard evidence from HCPC witnesses CC, HL, CH, CM and AM. The Panel found that the HCPC witnesses were credible and that they did their best to assist the Panel to the best of their recollection.

26. The Panel read the witness statement of CW. The Panel decided to admit the evidence of CW. There is evidence that CW continues to be unwell. The Panel was cautious in the weight it attached to the statement of CW. It noted that although the statement is signed, there are gaps in the statement where further information was requested by Kingsley Napley which have not been answered by CW. It is therefore possible that CW did not read and check the statement before she signed it.

27. The Panel carefully read and considered the Registrant’s representations. The Registrant’s representations are set out in an e-mail from his employment agency to the HCPC dated 17 November 2014, including supporting documents, letters from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 26 November 2015 and 2 February 2016, and a response pro forma. The Panel noted that the Registrant does not admit the facts as set out in the Notice of Allegation.
Particular 1
28. The Panel noted the content of the Registrant’s CV provided to the Trust which states that he attended clinical training with Oticon in relation to Zest applications in April 2010.
29. The Panel reviewed the handwritten notes of JJ which summarise a meeting with the Registrant at 4.45 p.m. on 20 May 2014. The notes record “I said he obviously hadn’t been on Zest training course – he hadn’t”. The Panel had no evidence from JJ to explain the content of her notes or when she made the notes. The notes do not make clear whether JJ inferred that the Registrant had not attended the Zest training, or that the Registrant told her that he did not attend. The Panel gave this hearsay evidence limited weight.
30. The Registrant’s position is that he attended a clinical training day with Oticon in 2010 “but as you will appreciate this was not to any great depth”.
31. The Panel did not draw an inference that the Registrant did not attend the Zest training because he did not use open fit adaptors when he fitted open fit hearing Zest or Synergy hearing aids.
32. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence that the Registrant did not attend a clinical training day at Oticon in April 2010, and therefore found that particular 1 is not proved.
Particular 2
33. The Panel accepted the evidence of CC that exhibit 4 is an accurate transcription of the relevant service user record for each of the Service Users. These records were made contemporaneously with each appointment, and the Panel decided that it could give weight to these notes because they are the official clinical record.
Service User A
34. CC stated that the aftercare instructions provided by Hearing Aid Dispensers include hearing aid insertion and removal, batteries, acclimatisation, nature of loss, and cleaning and servicing. The aftercare instructions are provided orally to the service user and in written documents or leaflets. She stated that it is not sufficient for written information only to be given. The Registrant’s position is that he gave appropriate aftercare instructions to all service users.
35. Particular 2(A)(i) concerns the adequacy of the aftercare instructions provided by the Registrant to Service User A. RV recorded in the clinical record of her follow up for Service User A on 27 May 2014: “Reinstructed on insertion and removal. Reinstructed on batteries, acclimatisation, nature of loss etc….(none done by Phil)”. The reference to “none done by Phil” is a reference to the instruction not being given by the Registrant.
36. The Panel noted that this particular depends on the hearsay evidence of Service User A’s report to RV noted in the clinical record. The Panel decided that the evidence contained in the clinical record is reliable and that the Registrant did not give appropriate aftercare instructions to Service User A. In reaching this decision the Panel took into account the supporting evidence relating to other similar particulars in the Allegation. There are a total of seven service users where the Panel has found that the particular concerning appropriate aftercare instructions is proved. The Panel found that there is a pattern of behaviour by the Registrant. The lack of appropriate aftercare instructions was noted by more than one Audiologist who conducted the follow up appointments. Although service users can forget instructions, it is not likely that all seven service users forgot the aftercare instructions they were given in the short period of time between the appointment with the Registrant and the follow up appointment.
37. The Panel found that particular 2(A)(i) is proved.
38. Although the Registrant has stated that he denies all the facts of the Allegation, he has consistently admitted that he did not fit open fit adaptors when he fitted Zest or Synergy open fit hearing aids prior to 21 May 2014. His statements are consistent with the note made by JJ of her meeting with the Registrant on 20 May 2014 where she recorded that he accepted he did not use adaptors.
39. The clinical record for Service User A shows that the Registrant fitted open fit Zest hearing aids on 8 May 2014. This date was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ on 20 May 2014. Therefore the Registrant did not use open fit adaptors.
40. One of the consequences of the Registrant’s failure to use open fit adaptors is that the hearing aid cannot be programmed to the correct levels and/or settings. The programming of the hearing aid for Service User A was carried out using Real Ear Measurements (REMs) which is an objective clarification of how the hearing aid is programmed; it takes into account the size and shape of the ear canal of the service user. 
41. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(A)(ii) is proved and 2(A)(iii) is proved. The Panel is of the view that 2(A)(ii) is a consequence of 2(A)(iii) and not a separate omission.
42. An Audiologist selects the appropriate size of dome for the service user by making a judgment on the size and shape of the ear canal and by testing the chosen size of dome in the service user’s ear. CC confirmed in her evidence that it is not unusual for the wrong sized dome to be used initially and if the service user finds the size of the dome uncomfortable it may also be changed. The Panel concluded, in the light of CC’s, evidence that the choice of size of dome is a clinical judgment. It follows that Audiologists may differ in their judgment of the appropriate size for each service user.
43. In the case of Service User A, RV the Audiologist who carried out the follow up appointment, changed the size of the dome from medium to small open domes. The Panel did not infer from this change in size that the size of dome selected by the Registrant was inappropriate and did not find that particular 2(A)(i) is proved.
Service User B
44. The Registrant fitted Service User B with two Zest hearing aids on 8 May 2014. The hearing aids were not open fit, but used custom made moulds which were individually shaped for Service User B. Oticon hearing aids using moulds do not require an open fit adaptor. The clinical notes show that the Registrant carried out REMs for Service User B.
45. CH carried out a follow up appointment for Service User B on 9 June 2014.She reviewed the Registrant’s results and noted that he had not changed the hearing aid settings on the computer from unilateral to bilateral. She stated that the computer automatically sets to unilateral which means that one hearing aid is being programmed. The Audiologist changes the settings to bilateral where two hearing aids are being programmed. Generally the target will be lower for bilateral hearing aids than for unilateral aids.
46. The Registrant therefore programmed the hearing aids to an incorrect target. The Registrant’s target was higher than CH’s target when she programmed the hearing aids on a bilateral setting. When programmed by the Registrant the hearing aids were louder because they were matched to an incorrect target.
47. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant did not programme Service User B’s hearing aids to the correct levels and particular 2(B)(i) is proved.
48. There is nothing in CH’s notes of the follow up appointment to indicate that the Registrant did not adjust the volume or fine tune the hearing aid during the initial appointment. The Panel therefore found that Particular 2(B)(ii) is not proved.
49. In her notes CH recorded that she advised Service User B on acclimatisation, explained how to clean the aids, and informed the Service User about repairs. She did not record whether or not the Service User reported to her that this was not done by the Registrant. In her witness statement she points out that there was a month between the appointment with the Registrant and her follow up appointment, and that the service user may have forgotten what she had been told. CH was not confident in her evidence that this service user had remembered instructions given by the Registrant.
50. In the case of Service User B the Panel did not find that the Registrant did not provide appropriate after care instructions. Particular 2(B)(iv) is not proved.
 Service User C
51. The Registrant fitted a Zest open fit hearing aid to the left ear of Service User C on 9 May 2014. This was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ where he acknowledged that he was not using open fit adaptors. Particulars 2(C)(ii) and 2(C)(iii) are therefore proved.
52. In her notes of her follow up appointment on 2 June 2014 for Service User C RV noted: “no instructions on use of VC, department policy, insertion, removal, cleaning, lost aid charge, 6 monthly appts so reiterated all this today…….Talked extensively about acclimatisation…Pt much happier she knows what she’s doing now”. In these notes “use of VC” refers to the use of the volume control button which allows the service user to alter the volume of the hearing aid within the range permitted by the setting of the hearing aid.
53. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions to Service User C. Particular 2(C)(i) is therefore proved.
Service User D
54. On 13 May 2014 the Registrant fitted Zest open fit hearing aids for Service User D. This was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ. Particulars 2(D)(iii) and 2(D)(iv) are therefore proved.
55. In the notes of her follow up appointment on 27 May 2014 for Service User D RV noted: “Reexplained [sic] VC button, insertion and removal and cleaning (none explained previously)”.
56. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions for Service User D. Particular 2(D)(i) is therefore proved.
57. On her follow up visit with Service User D, RV changed the size of the dome fitted by the Registrant. The Panel has already concluded that the appropriate size of dome is a clinical judgement for the Audiologist conducting the fitting and therefore finds Particular 2(D)(ii) is not proved.
Service User E
58. On 19 May 2014 the Registrant attempted to fit Synergy hearing aids for Service User E. Service User E stormed out before the Registrant completed the fitting.
59. The Panel found that particular 2(E)(i) is not proved because the Registrant attempted to fit Synergy hearing aids not Zest hearing aids as set out in the particular.
60. On 21 May 2014 HL contacted Service User E because an administrator had identified that there was a problem with Service User E’s appointment. HL recorded in her notes of the telephone call that Service User E was very unhappy and was considering making a complaint. In relation to the Registrant’s communication Service User E informed HL that after the Registrant took him into a room and told him to sit down he was not spoken to for ten minutes. The next time Service User E was spoken to by the Registrant was when he was given instructions about the insertion of batteries into the hearing aid.
61. The Audiologist should communicate with the service user throughout the appointment, explaining what the service user will hear during any tests, and giving reassurance and advice. The information about batteries would normally be given towards the end of the fitting session.
62. The telephone conversation between HL and the Service User was two days after the appointment with the Registrant and the events would have been fresh in the mind of Service User E. The Panel noted that Service User E began the fitting session with the Registrant in a negative frame of mind because he was unhappy that no one was on reception when he arrived. Appropriate communication with a service user includes picking up on any distress of the service user and using communication skills to diffuse the tension.
63. The Registrant did not communicate properly because he did not communicate with the Service User at all for approximately ten minutes. He also failed to diffuse the tension and prevent Service User E storming out of the fitting session, which was a failure to communicate appropriately. Particular 2(E)(iii) is therefore proved.
Service User F
64. On 19 May 2014 the Registrant fitted a Synergy open fit hearing aid to Service User F’s right ear. This was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ. Particulars 2(F)(i) and 2(F)(vi) are therefore proved.
65. The Registrant’s notes on 19 May 2014 record that “VC on”. This refers to the volume control button which can be operated by the service user, and the note indicates that this was switched on by the Registrant. RV’s notes of the follow up appointment on 27 May 2014 record that Service User F reported to RV that the hearing aid was fitted without a volume control button. There is nothing in the notes to show that RV checked the hearing aid and confirmed that there was no volume control button. Within the notes RV refers to switching on the volume control. However, this part of her clinical record is linked to the fitting of an additional hearing aid to the left ear.
66. The Panel did not find sufficient evidence that the Registrant’s clinical notes, which record that he switched on the volume control, were incorrect. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(F)(iii) is not proved.
67. In her notes of the follow up appointment on 27 May 2014 for Service User F RV noted: “Pt described locum as completely lacking in empathy and v. rude……talked over patient, was evasive when answering pts questions”.
68. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour by the Registrant, that the Registrant did not communicate appropriately with Service User F. Particular 2(F)(ii) is proved.
69. In the notes of the follow up appointment on 27 May 2014 RV noted: “reinstructed on batteries, acclimatisation, nature of loss etc…(none done by Phil)”.
70. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions for Service User F. Particular 2(F)(iv) is therefore proved.
71. On her follow up visit with Service User F RV changed the size of the dome fitted by the Registrant. The Panel has already concluded that the appropriate size of dome is a clinical judgement for the Audiologist conducting the fitting and therefore finds Particular 2(F)(v) is not proved.
72. The Panel reviewed the notes of Service User F’s initial assessment on 5 March 2014. The Audiologist recommended that Service User F should be fitted with two hearing aids due to severe hearing loss in her right ear and mild hearing loss in her left ear. The Registrant fitted a hearing aid to Service User F’s right ear only, as shown in his clinical note. The Registrant did not record any reason for not fitting a hearing aid in the left ear. The Panel found that particulars 2(F)(vii)(1) and (2) are proved.
Service User G
73. On 20 May 2014 the Registrant initially fitted Synergy open fit hearing aids for Service User G. This was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ, which did not take place until late in the afternoon on 20 May 2014. Particulars 2(G)(i) and 2(G)(iii) are therefore proved, in respect of this initial fitting.
74. In the notes of the follow up appointment on 10 July 2014 RV noted: “Pt complains no instruction on how to get aids in….no instruction on need to acclimatise so delivered this counselling at length today”.
75. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions for Service User F. There is also no record in the Registrant’s notes of any aftercare instructions given to Service User G after he re-fitted the aids using moulds. Particular 2(G)(ii) is therefore proved.
76. The clinical notes of the fitting for Service User G on 20 May 2014 show that the Registrant initially fitted open fit hearing aids. He then wrote an amendment to his fitting notes stating that he had “found moulds and re-fitted aids to 2112 moulds”. The initial fitting did not match the recommendation made by a previous Audiologist’s assessment. Particular 2(G)(iv) is therefore proved.
77. The recommendation made by a previous Audiologist referred to 2109 moulds, whereas the clinical note of the Registrant refers to 2112 moulds. The Panel noted that RV also refers to 2112 moulds in her clinical notes. Although the recommendation of the previous Audiologist was for 2109 moulds, there was no evidence that 2109 moulds were fitted. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(G)(v) is not proved.
Service User H
78. The Registrant fitted Zest open fit hearing aids for Service User H on 21 May 2014. He used open fit adaptors because this appointment was after his meeting with JJ on 20 May 2014.
79. In her follow up appointment on 7 June 2014 RV recorded: “Pt actually doing very well, had been taught so little by phil he went home and educated himself about cleaning, insertion, volume etc..using manual …supplied cleaning wires which weren’t given”.
80. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions for Service User H. Particular 2(H)(i) is therefore proved.
81. The Panel accepted the evidence of CC that she reviewed the programming of the hearing aids on the computer and that the settings were too high for the hearing loss of Service User H. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(H)(ii) is proved.
Service User I
82. The Registrant fitted Synergy open fit hearing aids for Service User I on 21 May 2014 using open fit adaptors.
83. When he programmed Service User I’s hearing aids the Registrant made the same error he made in the case of Service User B. He set the hearing aids to unilateral and therefore matched to the wrong target. Particular 2(I)(i) is therefore proved.
84. In relation to particular  2(I)(ii), there is nothing in CH’s notes of her follow up visit to indicate that the Registrant did not adjust the volume or fine tune the hearing aid. In her evidence to the Panel she stated that he had adjusted the volume. The Panel therefore found that Particular 2(I)(ii) is not proved.
Service User J
85. There is an error in the date of this particular. The particular refers to 7 June 2014. The Registrant did not provide clinical treatment to Service User J on 7 June 2014.
86. The Panel found that particular 2(J) is not proved.
Service User K
87. The Registrant fitted Zest open fit hearing aids for Service User K on 9 May 2014. This was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ and the fitting was therefore without open fit adaptors. Particular 2(K)(ii) is therefore proved.
88. On a follow up visit with Service User K, AM changed the size of the dome fitted by the Registrant. The Panel has already concluded that the appropriate size of dome is a clinical judgement for the Audiologist conducting the fitting and therefore finds Particular 2(K)(i) is therefore not proved.
89. The Panel notes that Particular 2(k)(iii) uses the term “retention hook”. The Panel is satisfied that this “retention hook” is the same as the “retainer wire” referred to by the witness and the “retainer cord” referenced by the Registrant. In her clinical notes AM recorded that she changed the tubing because the “retainer wasn’t trimmed properly”. The hearing aid has a “retainer wire”, which is designed to hold the hearing aid in place. It is usually placed in the outside part of the ear of the service user. It may be appropriate for the Audiologist to cut the retaining wire, particularly if the service user finds that the wire is uncomfortable. If the retaining wire is trimmed it must be trimmed so that it is not sharp so that it rubs on the service user’s ear.
90. In the case of Service User K the wire had not been trimmed correctly to ensure that it was not sharp. Particular 2(K)(iii) is therefore proved.
Service User L
91. The Registrant saw Service User L for a re-assessment appointment on 14 May 2014. He fitted Synergy open fit hearing aids. This appointment was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ on 20 May 2014 and he therefore did not use open fit adaptors. The Panel therefore found that particulars 2(L)(iv) and 2(L)(v) are proved.
92. In her follow up appointment on 27 May 2014 RV notes that Service User L was quite upset when she was advised the Registrant would not fit a hearing aid in the left ear. RV also noted “Pt also explained she had found the whole experience very distressing, and wanted to cry when it was over as she felt stupid, talked down to and guilty that she couldn’t bear the sound of it”.
93. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence of a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant did not communicate appropriately with Service User L. Particular 2(L)(i) is therefore proved.
94. On her follow up visit with Service User L, RV changed the size of the dome fitted by the Registrant. The Panel has already concluded that the appropriate size of dome is a clinical judgement for the Audiologist conducting the fitting and therefore finds Particular 2(L)(ii) is found not proved in respect of the appropriate size of dome.
95. RV recorded in her clinical notes on 27 May 2014 that she “cut corda retention hook as sharp in ear and ear looked like it was healing from a scratch”. This is an inappropriate fitting because the “retention hook” should not be cut so that it is sharp and may damage the ear. Particular 2(L)(ii) is therefore proved, with respect to the retention hooks.
96. RV also recorded in her follow up visit: “reinstructed on batteries, acclimatisation, nature of loss etc…(none done by phil)”. The Panel concluded, from these notes, and from the evidence showing a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to provide appropriate aftercare instructions for Service User L. Particular 2(L)(iii) is therefore proved.
Service User M
97. On 15 May 2014 the Registrant saw Service User M for a hearing aid repair appointment. The Registrant made an attempt to fit Synergy open fit hearing aids. This appointment was prior to the Registrant’s meeting with JJ on 20 May 2014 and he therefore did not use open fit adaptors. There was too much feedback, so he decided to use the service user’s existing moulds. In respect of the initial fitting of the Synergy hearing aids the Panel found that particulars 2(M)(iv) and 2(M)(v) are proved.
98. RV carried out a follow up appointment on 30 May 2014 and recorded in her clinical notes: “Pt very disappointment [sic] with Locum who fit aids. Found rude, uncommunicative, and unable to talk to the hearing impaired”.
99. The Panel concluded from these notes, and from the evidence of a pattern of similar behaviour, that the Registrant failed to communicate appropriately with Service User M. Particular 2(M)(i) is therefore proved.
100. The Panel reviewed RV’s clinical notes of the follow up appointment. The notes show that she identified the problem was that the tubing from the ear mould was directed into part of the ear which was causing considerable discomfort. The problem was specifically with the tubing, and not with the fitting of the moulds. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(M)(ii) is not proved.
101. The notes made by the Registrant on 15 May 2014 record “No time for rems….Subjectively Ok”. The Panel did not infer from the notes that the Registrant did not adjust and/or fine tune the volume. The Registrant did not make a follow up appointment for Service User M. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(M)(iii) is proved, in respect of not scheduling a further appointment.  However, CC does not suggest in her evidence that a follow up appointment was required. The Panel did not infer, solely from the clinical notes that there was a responsibility on the Registrant to make a follow up appointment in these circumstances. The Panel therefore found the fact proved, but that there is no criticism of the Registrant in relation to this particular.
Service User N
102. The Registrant saw Service User N on 15 May 2014 for a review of her hearing aids. The Panel accepted the evidence of AM that there was no record on the computer that the hearing aids were adjusted or re-programmed. If any adjustments had been made the data would be stored on Practice Navigator. AM checked the computer and there was no record for Service User N for 15 May 2014. The Panel therefore found that particular 2(N) is proved.
Service User O
103. There is an error in the date of this particular. The particular refers to 20 June 2014. The Registrant did not provide clinical treatment to Service User O on 20 June 2014.
104. The Panel found that particular 2(O)(i) and (ii) are not proved.
Particular 3
105. On 24 June 2015, through the Alexander Leigh Recruitment Agency, the Registrant provided a CV. The CV included a list of locum appointments in chronological order and an appointment at “Yeovil” from October to December 2011.
106. There is only one NHS Trust with an Audiology department in the Yeovil area, the Audiology department where CM worked. The Panel found that the Registrant did not work at Yeovil at any time in the period October to December 2011. CM had a good recollection of the Registrant because he worked at Yeovil for three days only from 30 May 2012 to 1 June 2012 and in this short period of time there were concerns about his communication with service users. CM also checked with the Finance Department who keep records of payments to agencies and timesheets for agency workers. The Finance Department confirmed CM’s recollection that the Registrant did not work at Yeovil during the period October to December 2011.
107. The Panel found that particular 3 is proved.
Particular 4
108. The Panel considered whether the entry in the Registrant’s CV, as found in particular 3, was a deliberate embellishment of the CV or was a careless mistake. If the entry was a deliberate embellishment it would be dishonest, by the standards of an ordinary and honest member of the profession, and the Registrant would have realised that it was dishonest by those standards.
109. The Registrant’s statement is limited to one sentence in a letter dated 26 November 2015. He states: “with reference to Alexander Leigh, this was possibly a typographical error & I did not mean to mislead anybody”.
110. In the Panel’s view the false statement in the Registrant’s CV could not be attributed to a simple typographical error. It was not a typing error in the year because the Registrant did not work for a three month period for Yeovil in any year. The Registrant has not provided the Panel with an accurate chronological CV or an explanation for his work history from October to December 2011. It is difficult to confuse a three day period of work with a three month period of work. The Panel were not satisfied that there is a sufficient or credible explanation by the Registrant for the misstatement in his CV.
111. The Registrant is a professional and would therefore be aware of the importance of an accurate CV to enable employers to make any appropriate reference and safeguarding checks. He would also have known that he might benefit from embellishment of his CV if it covered a gap in employment.
112. Taking into account the nature of the false statement, and the absence of a credible explanation, the Panel decided that the Registrant had deliberately embellished his CV. The Panel therefore found that particular 4 is proved.
Decision on Grounds:
113. The question of whether the proven facts constitute misconduct or a lack of competence is for the judgment of the Panel and there is no burden or standard of proof.
114. There is no statutory definition of misconduct, but the Panel had regard to the guidance of Lord Clyde in Roylance v GMC (No2) [2001] 1 AC 311: “Misconduct is 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 …practitioner in the particular circumstances”. The conduct must be serious in that it falls well below the required standards.
115. A lack of competence is a standard of work which is unacceptably low. It will usually be demonstrated by a fair sample of the Registrant’s work. In this case the Panel was satisfied that it has a fair sample of the Registrant’s work. The Panel has found facts proved in relation to 13 service users, from a total of 94 service users seen by the Registrant.
116. The Panel decided that particulars 3 and 4 constitute misconduct and do not constitute a lack of competence. Dishonesty is a serious matter for all professionals, and embellishing a CV is dishonest and a breach of trust. Employers rely on professionals to be scrupulously honest in CVs so that appropriate reference and safeguarding checks can be made. In this case, the Registrant’s action was deliberate and dishonest, which is more serious than providing a false CV due to gross negligence.
117. The Registrant’s dishonest conduct in deliberately embellishing his CV was a serious breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics: standard 3 “you must keep high standards of personal conduct” and standard 13 “you must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession”.
118. The Panel next considered the clinical matters in particular 2. The Panel did not find that particular 2(M)(iii) constituted misconduct or a lack of competence because there is no criticism of the Registrant.
119. The Panel decided that the clinical matters in particular 2 should be considered cumulatively. They have been grouped under one particular to demonstrate their connection and there is a repetition of similar errors.
120. The Registrant is an experienced Hearing Aid Dispenser. In his representations to the Panel he states that he is of nineteen years standing and that there have been no other concerns in relation to his ability. He describes in his representations his general abilities to communicate with service users and to provide aftercare instructions. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had the necessary communication skills. The Panel therefore found that the failures in the Registrant’s communication with service users and the failure to provide appropriate aftercare instructions did not constitute a lack of competence.
121. In the Panel’s judgment the Registrant’s communication failures were due to his unprofessional attitude towards his work. The Panel describe the Registrant’s attitude as “couldn’t care less”. This is a serious breach of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics standards 1, 3, 7 and 10 and of the Standards of Proficiency for Hearing Aid Dispensers paragraphs 1.b.3 and 1.b.4. Appropriate communication is a basic requirement for Hearing Aid Dispensers and the rude and curt communication described by the service users in this case is completely unacceptable. The Panel decided that the communication failures, including the failures to provide appropriate aftercare instructions, fell well below the standards expected, and was sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct.
122. The Panel next considered the remaining clinical failures. The Registrant in his representations submits that no induction was given to him by CC or JJ. The Panel noted that CC, having reviewed the Registrant’s CV and noting his experience and training, provided the Registrant with what she considered was an appropriate induction for an experienced and qualified Locum Audiologist. The Panel had no reason to doubt CC’s evidence.
123. A failure to either read or acknowledge the recommendations made by an audiologist who has carried out a previous assessment of the service user is serious. There is no justification for the Registrant’s failure and it is another aspect of his unprofessional attitude.
124. As an experienced Hearing Aid Dispenser the Registrant knew that he should only fit hearing aids if he had sufficient knowledge and skill relating to those hearing aids. The Registrant also knew that he should ask for assistance if he had any doubts on the correct fitting of a hearing aid. The Registrant decided to press ahead and fit the Oticon hearing aids without considering whether he required any guidance. In his representations the Registrant stated that his response to JJ was “I might of turned red in my exasperation in realising my error”. The Registrant’s immediate recognition of the error indicates that he did not lack the necessary clinical skills. In the Panel’s judgment, the Registrant’s decision to fit Oticon aids when he did not know or had forgotten the requirements for their fitting is another example of his unprofessional attitude.
125. The remaining failures to: trim the “retention hook”; programme the hearing aids to the correct settings; and adjust and fine tune the volume of the hearing aid taken cumulatively are also demonstrations of the Registrant’s unprofessional attitude. The Registrant had the necessary skill and ability, but did not apply his skill and ability to the level expected of a Hearing Aid Dispenser. The clinical errors were a breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics standards 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13 and a breach of the Standards of Proficiency for hearing aid dispensers paragraphs 1.a.6, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3a.
126. In the Panel’s judgment, the facts found in particular 2, with the exception of particular 2(M)(iii), are sufficiently serious to constitute misconduct. They do not constitute a lack of competence.
Decision on Impairment:
127. The Panel applied the guidance in the HCPC Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practise is impaired” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered the Registrant’s fitness to practise at today’s date.
128. The Panel first considered the personal component, which is the Registrant’s current competence and behaviour. The Panel has no information from the Registrant on his current circumstances. The Registrant provided no references or testimonials from any recent employer. He provided a “thank you” message from a service user dated July 2010 and a “thank you” letter from a service user dated November 1998. The Panel did not give weight to these documents because they are historic and provide no information about the Registrant’s current quality of work
129. Prior to the hearing the Registrant submitted a response to the HCPC’s proforma in which he denied all the facts of the Allegation. The only limited admission the Registrant has made is within his representations where he accepts that he made an error with regard to the open fit adaptors. He has not demonstrated insight and has expressed no remorse.
130. The Panel noted that, while the clinical errors may be remediable, dishonesty is difficult to remedy. There is no evidence of any remediation. The Registrant has not provided any reassurance to the Panel that he is willing to engage with the HCPC and address his past behaviour. The Panel has identified an attitudinal issue which may not be remediable. In the Panel’s judgment there is a significant risk of repetition of similar misconduct.
131. When it identified problems with the Registrant’s work the Trust acted promptly and invited all the service users to attend follow up appointments. This response limited the actual harm to service users. There is evidence that some of the service users were distressed by the Registrant’s communication failures.
132. In the Panel’s judgment there is a risk of harm to service users if the Registrant was to repeat similar misconduct. In particular there is a risk of damage to the hearing or to the ear of a service user if hearing aids are not fitted or programmed correctly. There are also risks of harm from communication failures, if service users become frustrated and do not use their hearing aids appropriately. There is also a risk of harm to service users arising from false statements in a CV. Employers rely on the accuracy of CVs when making safeguarding checks on hearing aid dispensers who may be employed or engaged.
133. The Panel also noted that that the Trust was required to spend valuable time and resources on resolving the issues arising from the Registrant’s misconduct. The Panel identified that if the Registrant was to repeat similar misconduct there is a risk of financial and reputational harm to employers.
134. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired, on the basis of the personal component.
135. The Panel next considered the critically important public policy considerations which include the need to protect service users, uphold standards of conduct and behaviour, and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
136. An informed member of the public would be concerned by the Panel’s conclusion that there is a significant risk of repetition of misconduct and therefore a risk to service users. They would also be concerned if a finding of impairment were not made, given the Panel’s findings. 
137. The finding of dishonesty in this case requires the Panel to make a clear declaration that such conduct is entirely unacceptable. Given the Panel’s findings about the Registrant’s attitude, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Panel did not conclude that the Registrant’s current fitness is impaired. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the public component.
Decision on Sanction:
138. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and applied the guidance in the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy (ISP). The purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant, though it may have that effect. The primary purpose of a sanction is to protect the public. In determining sanction the Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect to other registrants and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
139. The Panel identified the following aggravating circumstances:
• the potential for harm to service users including damage to hearing and the ear;
• the potential for financial and reputational harm to employers;
• the repetition of communication and clinical errors;
• the dishonesty was in a professional context.
140. The Panel identified the following mitigating circumstances:
• the absence of any other concerns in the Registrant’s lengthy career of nineteen years;
• limited actual harm to service users.
141. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of severity. It would not be sufficient to impose no sanction in the circumstances of this case because there would be no protection for service users. Public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined if the Panel took no action. Mediation is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
142. A Caution Order would not be sufficient to protect the public because the Registrant would be free to practise without restriction. A Caution Order would not mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct. The misconduct in this case cannot be described as minor or isolated, and there is no evidence of remediation or insight.
143. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel has found that there is an attitudinal issue which underlies the Registrant’s misconduct. There is no evidence that the attitudinal issue has been addressed by the Registrant through reflection on past events, the development of insight, or remediation. The Registrant’s engagement with the HCPC process has been limited. There is therefore an insufficient foundation on which the Registrant might safely return to practise under conditions of practice. The Panel was unable to formulate workable conditions of practice which would be sufficient to protect the public.
144. The Panel next considered the sanctions of a Suspension Order or a Striking Off Order. Both Orders provide protection for the public because they prevent the Registrant practising as a Hearing Aid Dispenser. In considering the proportionality of a Suspension Order the Panel balanced the Registrant’s interests against the public interest. The Panel also took into account the mitigating circumstances.
145. The Panel considered the Registrant’s misconduct in the context of his past history. The Registrant’s apparently successful career for a period of approximately nineteen years prior to the events in the Allegation indicates that the attitudinal issues the Panel has identified may not be deep seated. The dishonesty, although serious, is limited to one misstatement in a CV relating to work history. There is not a pattern of repeated dishonesty.
146. Paragraph 34 of the ISP states that: “If the evidence suggests that the registrant will be unable to resolve or remedy his or her failings then striking off may be the more appropriate option. However, where there are no psychological or other difficulties preventing the registrant from understanding and seeking to remedy the failings then suspension may be appropriate”. The Panel considered carefully whether the misconduct in this case was something the Registrant might be able to resolve or remedy. Although it may be difficult for the Registrant to persuade a reviewing Panel that his attitude is no longer a cause for concern, the Panel’s view was that the prospect was not so small that it should be discounted. 
147. The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant is not aware of the Panel’s findings of fact, and has not had an opportunity to reflect on those findings and consider his response. In these circumstances the Panel does not know whether the Registrant is capable of understanding his failings. If the Panel made a Suspension Order it would give the Registrant the opportunity to read and reflect on the decision. He may be able to demonstrate to a reviewing Panel that he understands his failings and is fit to return to practice.
148. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order would satisfy the wider public interest. It would mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s past behaviour. A Suspension Order would not damage public confidence in the profession or the regulator. Members of the public would expect the regulator to act, but would also recognise that the Registrant has had a long career and that the findings of misconduct relate to a relatively short period of time.  Members of the public would also understand that the Registrant has not yet had an opportunity to read and understand the Panel’s findings. The Panel decided that a Suspension Order would strike an appropriate balance between the public interest concerns the Panel has identified, and the Registrant’s interests.
149. The Panel considered a Striking Off Order and decided that it would be disproportionate to make such an order today. The misconduct in this case is sufficiently serious for such an order to be under serious consideration. However, the Panel decided that a Striking Off Order is not appropriate or proportionate today, given that the Registrant has not had an opportunity to read the Panel’s decision. The Registrant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate his suitability to return to practice which could be in the public interest.
150. The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for the maximum period of 12 months. The maximum period is appropriate to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, and to allow him time to reflect on the Panel’s decision and prepare a considered response to it.
151. The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. A future review Panel may be assisted by:
• the attendance of the Registrant in person;
• a reflective piece written by the Registrant demonstrating insight into his failings and the impact of those failings;
• evidence demonstrating that the Registrant has kept his knowledge and skills up to date;
• current or recent testimonials or references including any comments on the Registrant’s honesty and integrity;
• An up to date and comprehensive CV.

Order

The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Philip L Shaw from the register for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

The Panel also imposed an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period.

Interim Order:
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.  This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Mr Philip L Shaw

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
20/03/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended