Miss Sharmiane Claudette Drackett
During the course of your employment as a Social Worker at Coventry City Council, you:
1. Between around October 2010 and November 2013, did not consistently carry out and/or record statutory visits within the timescales in respect of:
(a) Service User 1;
(b) Service User 2;
(c) Service User 3;
(d) Service User 4;
(e) Service User 5;
2. Between around July 2012 and November 2013, did not consistently carry out and/or record initial assessments within required timescales in respect of:
(a) Service User 6;
(b) Not proved.
3. Between around October 2012 and November 2013, did not consistently carry out and/or record core assessments within required timescales in respect of:
(a) Service User 4;
(b) Service User 7;
4. Sent work related emails from your personal email address on or around:
(a) 18 January 2013;
(b) 21 January 2013;
(c) 22 February 2013;
5. Sent confidential information by email to a council employee who works outside of the social work department on:
(a) 12 February 2013;
(b) 14 February 2013;
6. The matters set out in paragraphs 1-6 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
7. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The substantive hearing panel found that all of the above particulars amounted to misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. It imposed a Suspension Order for a period of nine months.
2. The Panel heard the submissions of Mr Pye on behalf of the HCPC, and of the Registrant who made a submission by telephone. Mr Pye outlined the background of the case and submitted that the Registrant has not provided evidence of her insight into her misconduct, nor of any on-going training. Mr Pye submitted that in the circumstances, the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and that the minimum appropriate sanction is that of a continuation of the Suspension Order.
3. The Panel heard from the Registrant. Ms Drackett told the Panel that she accepted that she had not submitted the following documents:
• A reflective piece focusing on the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements and the importance of recording;
• Any testimonials or references from paid or unpaid work particularly in the field of social care;
• Evidence of how the Registrant has kept her knowledge and skills up to date.
4. The Registrant told the Panel that she had overlooked that the above information would have been of assistance to the Panel today. She indicated that she had been working for a housing association, and was also carrying out voluntary work for the NHS, working with families with vulnerable children.
5. The Registrant recognised that the lack of evidence provided by her meant that the Panel was likely to find her fitness to practise still impaired. She indicated that she would not be able to provide the information today and that she needed more time to provide the evidence of her insight and fitness to practise. She accepted that, in the circumstances, a further period of suspension would be necessary. She asked that the period of suspension be the minimum possible to provide references, training records, and proof of her insight and her fitness to practise.
6. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive appraisal of the Registrant to determine if she is fit to return to unrestricted practice. Its role was not to conduct a re-hearing of the allegations nor was it to go behind the previous findings. He advised that in carrying out this assessment, the Panel must exercise its own independent judgment. If the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, then it should also consider what the appropriate order should be.
Panel’s considerations and decision
7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel took into consideration the submissions of Mr Pye and of the Registrant. In particular it noted the following factors:
(a) This is a case of misconduct and there is no suggestion that the Registrant lacked the requisite competence to carry out the role of a Social Worker. Hence this is a case where the Registrant’s insight is of greater importance.
(b) The Registrant has not submitted any evidence of her insight and remediation but has indicated that this was an oversight. She accepts that she is unable to provide evidence of her insight to this hearing.
8. In the light of all the above, the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
9. The Panel then went on to consider what the appropriate and proportionate sanction should be. It had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Guide issued by the HCPC.
10. In the light of all the above, the Panel considered that a further period of suspension would be appropriate. In the light of the continuing lack of insight and remediation the Panel concluded that suspension of the Registrant’s practice is the only sanction that would suffice to protect the public and the public interest in the circumstances. The Panel also determined that the further period of suspension should be six months. This is the minimum period that would afford the Registrant sufficient time to gather evidence of her insight, remediation, testimonials, and to demonstrate her commitment to remaining in the profession.
The order imposed today will apply from 1 September 2017.
This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 1 March 2018 or earlier if new evidence which is relevant to the Order becomes available after it was made.
History of Hearings for Miss Sharmiane Claudette Drackett
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|24/01/2018||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Hearing has not yet been held|
|25/07/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|17/10/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|