Mrs Elizabeth Anne Chambers

: Social worker

: SW43424

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 24/11/2017 End: 17:00 24/11/2017

: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Conditions of Practice

Allegation

(As amended)
Between 01 April 2009 to 30 April 2015, during the course of your employment as a Social Worker at Cheshire West and Chester Council:

1.  In relation to Service User A and Service User B:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. in June 2014, you did not complete a Placement Information Report (PIR) prior to Service User A and Service User B moving placements and/or within 5 working days of their move;
ii. in June 2014 you did not update the care plan of Service User A and/or Service User B in a timely manner to reflect that they had moved placements;
iii. you did not record statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately 26 occasions between October 2012 and August 2014.

2. In relation to Service User C:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that in or around November/ December 2014:
i. did not record a statutory visit in a timely manner;
ii. did not complete a care plan in a timely manner;
b. Between September 2014 and January 2015, you did not consistently carry out statutory visits in a timely manner.

3. In 2014 you did not update the case summary for Service User Q in a timely manner.

4. In relation to Service User D:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that, from January 2014 until January 2015:
i. You did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. You did not consistently complete care plans in a timely manner;
b. You did not consistently carry out and/or record statutory visits in a timely manner.

5. In relation to Service Users E1 and E2, Service User F and/or Service User G:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that, from September 2012 until January 2015:
i. You did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. You did not upload care plans in a timely manner;
iii. You did not consistently record statutory visits in a timely manner.
b. You did not complete the assessment(s) for the Special Guardianship Order (SGO) application in a timely manner.

6. In relation to Service User H:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that, from August 2014 until January 2015:
i. You did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. You did not complete a PIR form prior to Service User H moving placements and/or within 5 working days of the move;
iii. You did not consistently record statutory visits in a timely manner;
b. You did not consistently carry out statutory visits in a timely manner;

7. In relation to Service User I:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. From January 2013 until January 2015, you did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. From September 2009 until January 2015, you did not consistently record statutory visits in a timely manner;
iii. Between December 2013 until January 2015, you did not adequately update the care plan,
b. You did not carry out statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately seven occasions between January 2011 and November 2014.

8. In relation to Service User P and/ or Service User O:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. Between December 2013 and January 2015, you did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner and/or at all;
ii. From September 2009 until January 2015, you did not consistently record statutory visits in a timely manner;
iii. From May 2014 until January 2015, you did not adequately update the care plan,
b. You did not carry out statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately five occasions between January 2011 and December 2014.

9. In relation to Service User J:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. Between August 2013 and January 2015, you did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. Between October 2013 and January 2015, you did not adequately update the care plan,
iii. Between June 2009 and January 2015, you did not record statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately 30 occasions;
b. You did not carry out statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately five occasions between June 2009 and February 2013.

10. In relation to Service User K:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. Between August 2012 and 31 January 2015, you did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. Between June 2014 and January 2015, you did not adequately update the care plan;
iii. Between 7 December 2011 and 14 January 2015, you did not record statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately 13 occasions;
b. You did not carry out a statutory visit in a timely manner between 5 August 2014 and 5 November 2014.

11. In relation to Service User L:
a. You did not keep accurate and/or contemporaneous records in that:
i. Between August 2013 and January 2015, you did not consistently update the case summary in a timely manner;
ii. Between January 2012 and January 2015, you did not record statutory visits in a timely manner;
b. You did not carry out statutory visits in a timely manner on approximately five occasions between November 2012 and February 2014;
c. You did not inform your team manager in a timely manner that the foster carer had locked Service User L in her bedroom at night.

12. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 11 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.

13. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters
Application to amend the Allegation
1. There was an earlier preliminary hearing on 2 March 2017 in which the Particulars of the Allegation were substantially amended without objection. At the start of this final hearing, Mr Paterson for the HCPC applied to further amend the Allegation to delete Particulars where the evidence no longer supported the charge and to clarify the Particulars. There was no objection. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and allowed the application on the basis that the proposed amendments were essentially technical in their nature.  There was no prejudice to the Registrant’s position if the amendments were permitted. There was also a subsequent and unopposed application to amend Particular 5 to reflect the fact that Service User E was in fact two people, namely Service Users E1 and E2.

The Registrant’s response
2. After allowing a delay in the start of proceedings in order to enable Mr Elton to take instructions, the Registrant admitted the following Particulars 2(a)(i), 4(b) insofar as it relates to recording, 5(a)(iii), 6(a)(i) and (iii), 7(a)(i) and (ii), 8(a)(i), 9(a)(iii), 10(a)(iii) and 11(a)(i) and (ii).  On the second day of the hearing, Mr Elton admitted Particulars 1(a)(iii) and 8(a)(ii) (as from December 2013) on behalf of the Registrant.  On the third day of the hearing, Mr Elton also admitted Particulars 4(a)(i), 5(a)(i), 7(a)(i), 9(a)(i) and 10(a)(i) on behalf of the Registrant.  All admissions related to not keeping contemporaneous records, as opposed to accurate records.

Background
3. Mr Paterson for the HCPC gave the Panel an overview of the Allegation and the evidence in opening the case. The Registrant qualified as a Social Worker in 1984. She started working for Cheshire County Council in 1995. She was employed by Cheshire West and Chester County Council (the Council) as a grade 10 Social Worker in the Children in Care and Leavers Team based in Northwich and Winsford. She was responsible for children in care. Her duties included care planning, statutory visits and managing cases that were subject to court care proceedings. 

4. The Registrant faced capability proceedings in 2013 in relation to multiple failures to record service user information and work within statutory timescales. The HCPC’s case is that she did not carry out her statutory duties in relation to fifteen service users in that she did not update case summaries, prepare care plans or other documents, carry out or record statutory visits in a timely manner or at all. In one specific case, it is alleged that she was aware that one of her service users was locked in her bedroom by her foster carer, but she did not report the matter to her manager in a timely manner.

The evidence
5. The HCPC relied on the written and oral evidence of Witness 1, the Registrant’s Team Manager, who was involved throughout the capability process. She became the Registrant’s line manager in September 2012. Witness 1 conducted extensive detailed audits of the records in relation to Service Users A-Q at periodic intervals from May 2013 to January 2015.  Witness 1 produced documentary records to support her evidence.
6. Witness 1 was responsible for supervising the Registrant. She described how the Registrant was initially reluctant to accept mentoring support from a colleague who she had previously mentored and who had since been promoted above her. The Registrant struggled with using the computerised record system. She also failed to attend reflective practice sessions that had been arranged for her.  Capability proceedings commenced on 23 May 2013 and continued into early 2015. The purpose was to monitor the Registrant’s performance in record keeping and to identify training and support in order to improve her skills. The Capability Review process continued with meetings on 13 November 2013, 14 February 2014 and 7 May 2014.

7. Concerns were expressed about the Registrant’s ability to update the recording system known as Liquid Logic. Every event or interaction had to be recorded. Every child or service user had an electronic case file. Social workers received substantial training in using the system and technical support was always available.  Further capability reviews took place on 14 July 2014, 28 October 2014 and 4 February 2015. There was only minimal progress, despite the Registrant knowing that her case records were subject to audit. There were continuing concerns about her record keeping. The Registrant worked four days per week and her caseload of approximately twenty cases at any one time was lower than would be expected of a Social Worker at her level, so in Witness 1’s view she was not overburdened with work, particularly as several cases were ready for closure or settled cases. Witness 1 gave evidence that the Registrant regarded the capability proceedings as a personal criticism and that she did not respond well to being challenged as to her deficiencies in recording and updating case files.

8. Witness 1 outlined the Registrant’s duties.  Care plans are formulated at multi-agency meetings and should be prepared within 10 working days of the start of a placement and updated before each six monthly review. The purpose is to support the child and achieve the best outcome.  Statutory visits require the Social Worker to see and speak to the child alone and to see their bedroom. The local authority’s policy is to record the statutory visit within five working days. The service user’s case summary should be updated three-monthly or when any significant changes occur so that any relevant worker can check the current position with ease.  A placement information report (PIR) sets out the child’s needs and registers that a placement agreement meeting has taken place.  It should be completed ideally prior to a new placement, or within five working days.  The completion of a PIR is a statutory duty. ‘Looked after’ children reviews are carried out every six months or within 28 days of a change of placement. 

9. The HCPC’s case was that the Registrant had failed to comply with her essential record keeping duties within the required timescales or at all.  Witness 1 made a comment in the capability proceedings notes to the effect that the Registrant had a high level of ability but that she chose to prioritise contact over recording. Witness 1 felt that the absence of recording left others unable to discover or challenge her actions. Witness 1 described omissions in recording or updating records as dangerous practice, because risks and problems were not identified or anticipated in a timely fashion. Witness 1’s view was that the Registrant took criticism too personally and did not reflect on her practice or acknowledge her shortcomings.

10. The Registrant also gave evidence about her understanding of the practice and purpose of record keeping and statutory procedures. She accepted it was important to meet statutory requirements to maintain records.  A Placement Information Report (PIR) related to the placement of a child in care and the responsibilities of those with care of the child. The Registrant appreciated that the carers will not understand the boundaries of their responsibilities if there is no PIR.
 
11. The Registrant also gave evidence of some of the service user difficulties and the travel involved in visiting some children.  She told the Panel that the capability process damaged her confidence and made her feel that she was under constant scrutiny. She felt humiliated having a mentor who she had previously mentored herself.  There were delays in implementing measures to assist her. She was referred to Occupational Health but the referral was refused. With hindsight, she would have sought other help more actively and at an earlier stage. She accepted that she was sensitive to criticism during the capability process. 

12. The Registrant accepted that she needed help with managing her time. She left her employment in early 2015 and has sought other work, but the absence of a positive reference has prevented her from working as a Social Worker. She has done some voluntary work. She also gave evidence of family, bereavement, health and financial issues that it is not necessary to outline here. She accepted that it was important to maintain records so that others knew the updated position in relation to service users.  If she returned to work then she would adopt a different way of working. She said she had had time to reflect on what she needed to do.  She said she was aware of the importance of CPD but admitted that she had not kept this up to date. She had read some articles online but not taken any courses. She would however like to return to social work.

Decision on facts
13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that they should apply the civil standard of proof and that the burden of proving the case was on the HCPC. The Panel noted that the Registrant had admitted significant Particulars of the Allegation, but kept in mind that her admissions were not conclusive. It was for the Panel to make their findings of fact on the evidence as a whole.

14. The Panel was able to assess Witness 1 and the reliability of her evidence over the course of three days. The Panel found Witness 1’s account to be knowledgeable and credible. Her testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence. She was fair and balanced in her assessment of the case in that she also gave some positive evidence of the Registrant’s character and competence. She was candid when she did not recall events. The Panel therefore concluded that they could place significant weight on the evidence of Witness 1. The Registrant had difficulties in recalling the facts of some cases. The Panel was satisfied that she attempted to give her honest recollection of her actions.

15. A combined summary of the oral and written evidence in relation to each Particular of the Allegation is set out below, together with the Panel’s findings of fact:

Particular 1(a) – found proved
16. Service Users A and B are siblings. The Registrant was responsible for managing their care and for implementing a court placement order prior to adoption proceedings. Statutory regulations required that a Placement Information Report should have been completed ideally prior to, or within five days after the service users moved to live with a family in South Wales on 20 June 2014. There is no record of the PIR on the Service User files, so there was no record of their new address.

17. The Registrant accepted the PIR was not completed within five days, but said this was not her fault. Her case was that there was a payment dispute with foster carers so it was not possible to input the information on the PIR until the dispute was resolved. The Registrant accepted there was some fairness in the criticism that the delay in completing the PIR within five days was due to her, but she said the information was already on the system in other documents.
 
18. The Liquid Logic case file system was not updated to reflect the fact that they had moved placements or to record the details of their new placement until over one month later on 24 July 2014. This was only after the Registrant’s omission had been highlighted at a supervision meeting on 23 July 2014. 

19. Witness 1’s evidence was that the care plan should have been updated within 10 days to record the move to the new placement on 20 June 2014. It was essential to update care plans so that the whereabouts of the service user are always known. Their safety cannot be ensured without this basic information. The care plan was not uploaded and finalised until 27 July 2014, which was within 3 days of Witness 1 raising the issue with the Registrant.

20. The Registrant’s case was that the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) had not completed the review documents because he was off sick, so the Registrant was unable to upload the care plan. She maintained she had written the care plan in June 2014, but it was not in the appropriate section. Witness 1 observed that the care plan was uploaded and finalised on 27 July within three days of her raising the issue with the Registrant.

21. Statutory visits should be recorded electronically within five working days of the visit having taken place. Witness 1 produced evidence that the Registrant did not record statutory visits within that timescale on 26 occasions between 31 October 2012 and August 2014 in respect of service users A and B. For example, the record of the visit on 31 October 2012 was not created until 21 November 2012. In another example, the record of a visit on 7 December 2012 was not created until 13 February 2013.

Findings of fact
22. The Panel found 1(a)(i) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.  The Panel accepts the evidence of Witness 1 that there were no details of the new address available on the Liquid Logic system.

23. The Panel found 1(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.  The care plan was not updated for over a month, and then only after prompting by Witness 1, so it was not done in a timely manner.

24. The Panel found 1(a)(iii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.  In finding this Particular proved, the Panel finds that the Registrant did not keep accurate or contemporaneous records. If the records were not updated contemporaneously, they were not current and were therefore inaccurate for that reason. The same finding applies in relation to all Particulars regarding the keeping of accurate or contemporary records.

Particulars 2(a) and 2(b) – found proved
25. Service User C was allocated to the Registrant in September 2014 after care proceedings had concluded. Service User C was a ‘looked after’ child but was placed with her parents.  She should have received statutory visits every four weeks.  Witness 1’s audit of the case records in January 2015 revealed that no statutory visits had been recorded since allocation.

26. Witness 1 also discovered that the care plan on the Liquid Logic database was still in draft form when she conducted her January 2015 audit. It was due to be filed with the court on 28 November 2014. Witness 1 had told the Registrant on 5 November 2014 that she should arrange a multi-agency care plan meeting before the care plan was filed. The Registrant had chaired a meeting herself, and had in fact filed the care plan with the court in time, but the care plan was not loaded onto the Liquid Logic system until 19 January 2015 and the record of discussion was blank.

27. Witness 1 subsequently discovered that the only other person present at the meeting was the mother, so this was not a properly constituted multi-agency care plan meeting in Witness 1’s view.

28. The Registrant’s case was that the late completion of the care plan was not her fault.  There was in effect no agreed care plan, because the Court had not accepted the proposed care plan to remove the child from the care of her mother. The Registrant’s case was that there were issues with getting the care plan done in time. Witness 1 pointed to a supervision note that the Social Worker will arrange a care plan and review before 14 November 2014.  Witness 1’s view was that the care plan meeting was only a mother and child meeting, which was not a multi-agency meeting. The Registrant said that there was a subsequent care plan meeting at the school in which the minutes were taken by a student Social Worker, then the case was transferred to another Social Worker.  The Registrant was unable to retrieve the minutes, so no care plan was written. 

29. When auditing the case file on 4 January 2015, Witness 1 found that no statutory visits had been loaded since the case was allocated to the Registrant in September 2014.  A statutory visit on 9 December 2014 was not recorded until 6 January 2015. Witness 1’ s evidence was that the visit should be recorded within a week.  The Panel noted that the council policy was to record the visit within 5 working days.

30. The Registrant’s case was that she did carry out visits other than on 9 December 2014 in a timely manner, but that Service User C was a difficult child who refused to see a Social Worker. She accepted that a failed statutory visit was not recorded. A statutory visit was carried out on the 9 December 2014 when the child was more compliant. Witness 1’s evidence was that one could not be satisfied visits were attempted or took place if they were not recorded.

Findings of fact
31. The Panel finds 2(a)(i) proved on the same basis as that outlined for 1(a)(iii).

32. The Panel found 2(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The care plan was only in draft form and it was incomplete when it was uploaded in January 2015. The Panel were not persuaded by the Registrant’s excuse that she could not complete the care plan because she could not obtain the minutes of a meeting taken by a student Social Worker.

33. The Panel found 2(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not consistently make statutory visits in a timely manner, there being no record of such visits.

Particular 3 – found proved
34. Service User Q was 16 years old in 2014 and had been in her current placement since 2010. She was doing well and had to be transferred to the Leaving Care Team to prepare her for more independent living. However, the service user had been unable to move to the Leaving Care Team in September 2014 at the age of 16 years, because the case summary had not been updated since December 2013. There was no update to her records between December 2013 and January 2015. This delayed the service user’s transfer to the Leaving Care Team. Witness 1’s evidence was that case summaries should be updated every three months or when there was something significant to record.

35. The Registrant’s case was that there was little that could be added to a case summary in this case, but she admitted in evidence that she should have updated the case summary during the year.

Finding of fact
36. The Panel found Particular 3 proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

Particulars 4(a) and 4(b)
37. Service User D is the younger sibling of Service User Q.  She was an unsettled 14 year old, often going missing. She moved to a specialised school in September 2015.

38. An initial audit in November 2013 showed that the most recent case summary was dated August 2013. The audit in January 2015 showed that the most recent case summary was dated 31 December 2013.  Witness 1’s evidence was that the lack of updated information would have posed problems in the Registrant’s absence in the event of a crisis particularly for the Emergency Duty Team.

39. Witness 1’s audit of January 2015 revealed that care plan meeting outcomes from April 2014 were still in draft form, so that the November 2014 care plan could not be loaded onto Liquid Logic. The care plans had not been completed and were not uploaded until January 2015.

40. The Registrant’s case was that she did consistently complete draft care plans in a timely manner, albeit that they were not uploaded.  Witness 1 said that she did not know that care plans were completed because the care plans were not uploaded on the system.

41. Witness 1’s evidence was that statutory visits in May and June 2014 were not recorded until August 2014. Statutory visits in August, September and November 2014 were not recorded until 18 December 2014. The Registrant maintained she had done the visits, but that she failed to record them in a timely manner.

Findings of fact
42. The Panel found 4(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.

43. The Panel found 4(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The care plans were incomplete because they were only in draft form and not uploaded until January 2015.

44. The Panel found 4(b) proved on the Registrant’s own admission (in relation to recording only) and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. As to the issue of whether the Registrant actually carried out the statutory visits, the Panel found on balance that the HCPC had not proved that the Registrant did not carry out the visits in this specific case. 

Particulars 5(a) and 5(b) - found proved
45. Service Users E1 and E2 are sisters and Service User G is their brother.  They are the siblings of service users D and Q, but they were in a different placement together with service user F, who was their cousin. Service users E1, E2, F and G were placed with a long term foster carer. The plan was to apply for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) in May 2013. The Registrant’s duties were to carry out statutory visits every 8 weeks.

46. Despite the decision to apply for an SGO in May 2013, case summaries were not updated until December 2013. A review in November 2013 revealed that none had been updated in over a year since 2012. The subsequent audit in January 2015 showed no further updates after December 2013. This meant that there had only been one update of the case summaries over the course of three years.

47. Witness 1 said it was important to update the case files in order to progress the SGO application. There was a legal planning meeting on 31 January 2014 at which it was agreed that multi-agency agreement would be obtained at the March 2014 care planning meeting. The Registrant therefore had one month to upload updated care plans but she had not done this by January 2015.

48. The Registrant’s case was that the care plans were done in a timely manner and prepared in time for the review, even if they were not uploaded 20 days in advance of the review.  She recalled the children looking at the paper copies of the care plans at the review.  She accepted that the care plans were not uploaded in a timely manner.

49. Statutory visits for July, August, September and November 2013 were not uploaded until 28 November 2013. No record of a visit in April 2014 was uploaded. The Registrant uploaded records of visits for June, July and September 2014 on various dates in January 2015.

50. Assessments for an SGO should have been completed within two months of the decision to apply for the order in May 2013.  Witness 1’s evidence was that the Registrant did not complete the assessments, despite prompting, until September 2014. There was therefore a significant delay in filing the court application, which can cause unnecessary anxiety to all parties concerned in the outcome.
 
51. The Registrant’s case was that the assessments were indeed completed, at least in part. The SGO was not filed until September 2014 because there were other issues outside her control, namely that the support plan was still being debated when the case went to court. The Registrant relied on 4 October 2013 supervision notes which noted that the papers were completed and ready to file, so it was not fair to suggest she did not complete the assessments in a timely manner. Witness 1 maintained that the assessments were still not done as quickly as they should have been.
Findings of fact

52. The Panel found 5(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

53. The Panel found 5(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The care plans were done in early 2014 but they were not uploaded until January 2015.  The Registrant herself accepted that the uploading was not done in a timely manner.

54. The Panel found 5(a)(iii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

55. The Panel found 5(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Registrant admitted that she had not completed two of the four assessments within six weeks of 29 July 2014 as requested by her manager. Whilst the Panel was therefore satisfied that two assessments had been completed within the timescale she was given, the other two SGO assessments were not completed in a timely manner.

Particulars 6(a) and 6(b) – found proved
56. Service User H was a vulnerable teenager who was referred to Social Services after sustaining a non-accidental injury or assault by his stepfather. Witness 1’s audit in January 2015 revealed that the case summary had not been updated since August 2014, despite the fact that service user H had been returned to his parents and remained at potential risk.

57. The PIR form was dated September 2014, even though the service user moved placements in August 2014. It was also in draft form and empty of content.  The PIR should have been completed ideally prior to the move or within five days of the moving date. It was subsequently completed only in January 2015.  The PIR form is an important document because it sets out the boundaries of what the carers can decide without consulting the local authority. The Registrant accepted that the PIR was not completed on time “because of an oversight on my part”.

58. Witness 1’s audit in January 2015 revealed that the most recent statutory visit took place on 21 August 2014. Service User H was at high risk so statutory visits were necessary every four weeks. On 2 February 2015, the Registrant uploaded records of statutory visits on 15 August, 17 September, 17 October and 9 November 2014.

59. No record of statutory visits was uploaded for December 2014 or January 2015, so Witness 1 assumed that those visits were not done. Service User H was a vulnerable young person so the situation should have been more closely monitored.

60. The Registrant’s case was that she made statutory visits regularly and she assured Witness 1 that all visits had been done. Witness 1 responded to this suggestion in cross-examination by observing “but they were not loaded”. Witness 1 could not say the visits were timely if the visits were not recorded.

Findings of fact
61. The Panel found 6(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel found this to be of particular concern because Service User H had recently returned to his parents and was seen as potentially at risk.

62. The Panel found 6(a)(ii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.  The Registrant admitted in evidence that she had overlooked the PIR.  She failed to comply with a statutory requirement.

63. The Panel found 6(a)(iii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.

64. The Panel found 6(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not consistently make statutory visits in a timely manner, there being no record of such visits in December 2014 and January 2015.

Particulars 7(a) and 7(b) – found proved
65. Service User I is the sibling of Service User F but they live at different accommodation. Service User I had a series of foster placement breakdowns resulting in his going into an agency residential placement.

66. The November 2013 audit revealed that the most recent case summary was dated January 2013. The January 2015 audit revealed the most recent case summary was dated December 2013. A further review on 31 January 2015 indicated that the most recent case summary was recorded in October 2014.

67. Witness 1 discovered in her audit of January 2015 that the service user did not have a current care plan. There was a draft care plan dated 1 December 2013. January and July 2014 updates were only finalised   in January 2015. Failure to update a care plan could result in “drift” in that the child’s needs are not being addressed.

68. The Registrant’s case was that she could not load another care plan on the system because others, in particular the IRO (independent review officer) had not loaded her review document onto the system. She contacted business support to chase this, but she cannot recall timescales. Witness 1 responded that the Social Worker remained responsible for uploading the care plan. She accepted that the Liquid Logic system had changed in 2015 to allow independent uploading of documents.

69. Statutory visits should be recorded electronically within one week of the visit having taken place. Between December 2010 and November 2014, the Registrant failed to record her statutory visits within one week on at least 30 occasions. Witness 1 said this was particularly concerning in the case of a child with so many placement moves.

70. Statutory visits were required every six weeks in this case because he was a child in a residential home.  Witness 1 identified seven occasions on which statutory visits were made outside the statutory timescale between January 2011 and November 2014, including gaps of between eight to thirteen weeks between visits.  The Registrant’s case was that she did carry out the statutory visits but that she did not record them all.

Findings of fact
71. The Panel found 7(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The witness highlighted that Service User I had faced a number of placement changes and not having an up to date case summary may have limited the appropriateness of an emergency response if needed.

72. The Panel found 7(a)(ii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 


73. The Panel found 7(a)(iii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The care plan was not adequately updated in that updates were only finalised in January 2015.

74. The Panel found 7(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not make statutory visits in a timely manner on or about seven occasions between January 2011 and November 2014.

Particulars 8(a) and 8(b) – found proved
75. Service Users P and O are siblings. They were placed at home with their mother but subject to care proceedings that concluded on 11 July 2014. There had been domestic violence issues with the absent father. The January 2015 audit established that the most recent case summary was dated 19 December 2013. Witness 1 gave the Registrant the opportunity to update the case summary, but she failed to do so in the thirteen months from December 2013 to January 2015.

76. Witness 1’s audit also revealed that the service users did not have a current care plan. The care plan of May 2014 had not been updated to reflect that the fact that full Care Orders were granted in July 2014. The care plan was not uploaded until January 2015. The absence of a current care plan on the system for six months meant that the needs of the service users were not being addressed.

77. The Registrant accepted the care plan should have been updated shortly after the court orders were granted in July 2014, but she could not remember whether she had done so or not at this distance of time.

78. Witness 1’s evidence was that the siblings were subject to statutory visits every four weeks because they were subject to a care order but placed with the mother, so they were at higher risk. The Registrant did not carry out statutory visits within that timescale on five occasions between January 2011 and December 2014.

79. The Registrant’s case was that she visited the children regularly, even if those visits were not recorded.  There may have been some slippage in the timing of one visit because the mother was out when she called.  She should have noted this as a failed statutory visit.  Witness 1’s view was that visits that were not recorded were not regarded as done. Witness 1 agreed that the statutory maximum (see Regulation 28(5)) in such cases is six weeks, but she maintained that the local authority policy was four weeks for children placed with parents.

80. In this case, statutory visits should be recorded electronically within five working days.  Witness 1 discovered that they had not been so recorded on eleven occasions between January 2014 and January 2015.

Findings of fact
81. The Panel found 8(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

82. The Panel found 8(a)(ii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. This Particular is only proved on the evidence from December 2013 when the case was allocated to the Registrant.

83. The Panel found 8(a)(iii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The care plan was not adequately updated between May 2014 and January 2015. The Registrant herself accepted that she could not remember whether she had updated the care plan shortly after the court order in July 2014.

84. The Panel found 8(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel noted Witness 1’s evidence that these service users were at the highest risk.  The Panel accepted Witness 1’s evidence that the council policy was therefore for statutory visits to take place as a minimum every four weeks.  On that basis, the Registrant failed to carry out visits within that timescale on five occasions.

Particulars 9(a) and 9(b) - found proved
85. Service User J was a settled ‘looked after’ teenage child in long term foster care. He had moderate learning difficulties, so Witness 1 asked that he be assessed by the Disability Team so as to assist him in moving into independent adulthood. It was necessary to update his records before any referral to the Disability Team.

86. The 9 November 2013 audit established that the most recent case summary was dated August 2012. The 4 January 2015 audit revealed that the most recent case summaries were dated December 2013 and August 2014.  It was next updated by a new Social Worker in February 2015.

87. Witness 1 discovered there was no current care plan in January 2015 and no evidence of any care planning since October 2013. When this was pointed out, the Registrant subsequently uploaded care plan updates for April 2014 and September 2014.

88. The Registrant’s case was that the care plans were available for the service user to read and she could recall him doing so. The care plan was updated, even if it was not uploaded. In her view, updating the care plan meant writing a fresh care plan for the review.  When this was put to Witness 1, she responded that she did not know how the service user could have read any care plan if it was not uploaded on the system.

89. Witness 1’s audit established that statutory visits were not carried out by the Registrant within the statutory timescale of eight weeks on five occasions between June 2009 and February 2013.  There were gaps between visits of between eight and eighteen weeks. The Registrant maintained that she had carried out statutory visits within sufficient intervals even if she had not recorded them.

90. In this case, statutory visits should be recorded electronically within five working days. Witness 1 discovered that they had not been so recorded on thirty occasions between June 2009 and January 2015.

Findings of fact
91. The Panel found 9(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

92. The Panel found 9(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. There was no care plan from October 2013 and updates from 2014 were not uploaded until 3 February 2015. This was not an adequate update of the care plan.

93. The Panel found 9(a)(iii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel notes the exceptionally long timescale in this case.

94. The Panel found 9(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not make statutory visits in a timely manner on five occasions between January 2009 and February 2013.  The Panel noted gaps of up to eighteen weeks between visits in the records.


Particulars 10(a) and 10(b) – found proved
95. Service User K was also settled in long term foster placement.  He also had moderate learning difficulties.  He was due to be assessed by the Disability Team, so his records had to be updated before any referral.

96. The November 2013 audit established that the most recent case summary was dated August 2012. The January 2015 audit revealed that the most recent case summary was in March 2014.  The case summaries should be updated every three months. The Registrant was given the opportunity to update the care plan but she failed to do so.

97. Witness 1 discovered that there was no current care plan in January 2015 and no evidence of care planning since March 2014. A care plan should be updated within six months. The Registrant subsequently uploaded care plan updates for September 2014 in January 2015.

98. The Registrant denied failing to update the care plan. Her case was that she worked very hard to get J and K assessed by the Disability Team and they were eventually accepted. It was put to Witness 1 that the Registrant was not informed that the lack of a care plan on the system was an issue in relation to referring to another team. Witness 1 said that the Registrant was so informed.

99. In this case, statutory visits should be recorded electronically within one week. Witness 1 discovered that they had not been so recorded on thirteen occasions between December 2011 and January 2015.

100. Witness 1 established that no statutory visit was carried out between 5 August 2014 and 5 November 2014, with the result that the service user was not seen for 14 weeks. The Registrant maintained that she carried out a statutory visit within the timescale, even if she had not recorded the meeting in this case.

Findings of fact
101. The Panel found 10(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. 

102. The Panel found 10(a)(ii) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. There was no adequate update of the care plan since March 2014.

103. The Panel found 10(a)(iii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.
 
104. The Panel found 10(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not make a statutory visit in a timely manner between 5 August 2014 and 5 November 2014, there being no record of a visit in this period.

Particulars 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) – found proved
105. Service Users L resides with her half sister at the same placement.  They had initially been placed with their maternal aunt and uncle.

106. The November 2013 audit established that the most recent case summary for Service User L was dated August 2013. The January 2015 audit revealed that the most recent case summary was in March 2014.

107.  Witness 1 established in November 2013 that there had been no recorded statutory visits since 10 June 2013.  Witness 1 established in January 2015 that no statutory visits were carried out between 5 August 2014 and 5 November 2014.
 
108. Witness 1’s evidence was that Registrant did not carry out statutory visits within the timescales on five occasions between November 2012 and February 2014. There were gaps of eight to twelve weeks. Eight weeks was the minimum timescale for a stable situation but this was not such a case. The records showed that there were in fact three occasions, rather than five occasions, in the relevant period.  The Registrant’s case is that she would have done visits that were not recorded.

109. In this case, statutory visits should be recorded electronically within five working days. Witness 1 discovered that they had not been so recorded on twenty occasions between January 2013 and January 2015.

110. Service User L displayed increasing behavioural problems, which had an impact on her sister.  Witness 1 was concerned that the Registrant’s lack of recording left her unable to review the situation. There were also concerns regarding the foster carer. In particular, the foster carer had told the school nurse on 26 March 2014 that he had been locking Service User L in her bedroom as a response to her behaviour.  On 27 March 2014, Witness 1 spoke to the Registrant, who informed Witness 1 that she had been made aware of this fact the previous day, but that she had chosen not to inform Witness 1 because she knew that Witness 1 would ‘blow it out of proportion’. Witness 1’s view was that the Registrant should have informed her manager immediately in order to address a safeguarding issue of potential harm to the child. 

111. The Registrant’s case was that she returned to office on the day of the incident and went to the fostering manager’s office and spoke with her about it. Witness 1 said this was not the information that was given to her.  The Registrant’s case was that she took action to remove the lock and install a door alarm, and that she was led to believe that Witness 1 was informed about the incident by the foster carer’s Social Worker. Witness 1 responded that the Registrant was the Social Worker for the child. She had legal responsibility to lead an investigation and to inform her manager. When asked why she had not informed her, she got the response: “I knew you would blow it out of proportion”.  The Registrant said that this was a defensive outburst, because she felt that she was being “unjustifiably got at”.

Findings of fact
112. The Panel found 11(a)(i) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. This was of particular concern because there was a safeguarding referral to the local authority designated officer.

113. The Panel found 11(a)(ii) proved on the Registrant’s own admission and on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1.  The Panel noted that one statutory visit in 2012 was not recorded for over two years.

114. The Panel found 11(b) proved on the documentary evidence, including the case records, produced by Witness 1. The Panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did not make statutory visits in a timely manner on three occasions between November 2012 and February 2014. The Panel construed three occasions as just about falling within ‘approximately five occasions’ as alleged.

115. The Panel found 11(c) proved. The Panel noted that the Registrant admitted not telling her manager about the incident directly and that she was duty bound to inform her manager about the incident. The Panel accepted Witness 1’s evidence that the Registrant admitted not raising the issue with her because she thought she would blow it out of proportion.  The Panel also noted that the Registrant admitted using the words, “I knew you would blow it out of proportion” which indicates a decision on her part not to inform her manager in a timely manner, even if she thought that her manager had found out about the incident from another source.

Decision on grounds
116. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was assisted by the submissions of both parties. The Panel therefore had in mind the definition of misconduct in Roylance v GMC [2011] 1 AC 311: Misconduct is “some act or omission which falls short of what is 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.” The Panel also had in mind that misconduct must be serious misconduct of a kind that would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners and that isolated incidents were less likely to amount to misconduct. 

117. The Panel also considered the definition of lack of competence or professional deficiency as set out in Holton v GMC [2006] EWHC 2960 that the standard to be applied was that applicable to the post to which the registrant has been appointed and the work he or she was carrying out, and that competence should be measured in the context of a reasonable sample of their work.

118. By reason of our overall findings on the facts as set out above, the Panel found the Registrant to have breached the following standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics that were applicable at the relevant time:-
Standard 1 You must act in the best interests of service users
Standard 5 You must keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date.
Standard 7 You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners
Standard 10 You must keep accurate records.

119. The Registrant’s persistent and regular failures to maintain and update case summaries and care plans in a timely manner and to undertake and record statutory visits were such as to place vulnerable young service users at a risk of harm. Failure to maintain or to undertake these basic safeguarding duties would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.  The Panel also noted that the Registrant’s manager gave her ample time and regular opportunities to correct her deficiencies but she failed to make the necessary improvements.  The Registrant was an experienced Social Worker who knew the importance of record keeping. Accordingly, the Panel found that the evidence of the Registrant’s persistent failings and omissions amounted to misconduct.  Having made a finding of misconduct, there was no need to make a formal finding in relation to the lesser ground of lack of competence.

Decision on impairment
120. The Panel considered the submissions of the parties and the HCPC Practice Note on impairment and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel reminded itself of the critically important public policy issues outlined in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581: “the need to protect the individual and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour which the public expect…and that the public interest includes, amongst other things, the protection of service users and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession.”

121. The Panel also had regard to the criteria that were set out by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Report, namely whether our findings of fact in respect of the Registrant’s misconduct show that her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that she has put service users at risk, or is liable to do so in the future, whether she has brought her profession into disrepute or may do so in the future, and whether she has breached the fundamental tenets of her profession or may do so in the future. There was no need to consider whether she has acted dishonestly because this is not such a case.

122. In answering those questions, the Panel found that the Registrant’s failures and omissions were such as to place vulnerable service users at risk of harm. In acting in this way, the Panel found that the Registrant had brought her profession into disrepute. It must also be a fundamental tenet of her profession that service user safety should not be jeopardised by failures in basic record keeping.

123. The Panel found that fitness to practise is currently impaired. In relation to the personal component, there was only limited evidence of insight. The Registrant acknowledged in evidence that she had made mistakes and that she would do things differently now.  However she continued to blame Liquid Logic and the lack of time for her failings. There was therefore limited evidence of insight and none of remediation, but not sufficient evidence to prevent a finding of current impairment. The Panel’s finding of impairment is also made on the basis of the need to protect the public and in the wider public interest in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel notes that a reasonable member of the public would expect a finding of current impairment on the facts of this case.

124. In making our finding of impairment, the Panel acknowledged that there was evidence that the Registrant was otherwise capable, conscientious and well regarded in her dealings with service users. She had not previously been the subject of any referral to the HCPC during the course of a long career in social work. These factors are of significant weight when it comes to the next stage.

Resumed hearing on 24 November 2017
125. At the previous hearing on 21-25 August 2017, which had to be adjourned due to a lack of time, the Panel decided that it was necessary to impose an interim order requiring the Registrant to inform any future employer of the findings that were made in relation to the facts and impairment.  The Panel found that such an order was necessary to protect the public, in view of its finding that the Registrant had placed vulnerable service users at risk of harm. It was therefore essential that any future employer should be placed on notice of the Panel’s finding.

Hearing on sanction
126. The issue of sanction was decided on 24 November 2017 at a resumed hearing before the same Panel. On this occasion, the HCPC was represented by Ms Laura Vignoles and the Registrant was represented by counsel, Mr Andrew Bousfield.

127. The Registrant submitted a reflective statement, in which she accepted the findings of the Panel and stated that she recognised how a lack of recording might risk harming service users.

128. The Registrant attended the hearing by telephone and gave evidence.  She explained her understanding as to the increasing importance of timely and accurate record keeping in social work in order to ensure that concerning patterns are highlighted. She said she understood the importance of recording information in order to assist others who were reviewing each case.

129. She was currently working in customer services for a supermarket. She had not been able to obtain work as a Social Worker because her previous employer’s reference was poor and she had been out of social work for three years. She would like to return to the profession, but she accepted that she would benefit from supervision if her practice were to be made subject to restrictions.

130. The Registrant said that at the time of the incidents the burden of the backlog of recording had become so overwhelming that it had become disabling, especially when she was distracted by other personal issues. She accepted that her employers had made efforts to assist her although she believed the kind of help that was offered was not what she needed. She would seek to avoid a recurrence of the previous problems by diarising time for recording, asking for help sooner if needed and welcoming supervision and monitoring of her work. 

131. She told the Panel that she had not done any continuing professional development (CPD) since the hearing in August 2017, because the outcome of that hearing had undermined her confidence in her ability to return to the profession and because of her financial position. She had not approached anyone for testimonials. However, she felt that she had more to offer to the profession and that she would like to return. She had approached social work agencies but they had not accepted her after they had seen a copy of the Panel’s decision.  She said that she had tried to keep up to date with child protection issues through reading articles online or watching documentaries, but she had not done any social work or other professional courses since 2015.

132. Ms Vignoles submitted that this was a serious case of persistent and regular failings in record keeping, involving long delays, which had posed a risk of harm to vulnerable children. The Registrant had known the importance of record keeping but she had disregarded it.  Ms Vignoles acknowledged that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight but submitted that she had not yet done enough to remedy her failings.  Mr Bousfield for the Registrant reminded the Panel that the Registrant had made admissions and submitted that any risk to the public could be mitigated by a short conditions of practice order that permitted a return to work under supervision.

Decision on sanction
133. The Panel considered the Indicative Sanctions Policy of the HCPTS and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel kept in mind that the sanction must be proportionate and that its purpose was to protect the public and not to punish the Registrant, even if that was its effect. The Panel also took account of the submissions of both parties in reaching its decision.

134. The Panel started the process of determining the appropriate sanction by identifying and assessing the relative weight of the mitigating and aggravating features in this case. 

135. In mitigation, the Panel took into account the Registrant’s had not been referred previously to her regulator and acknowledged that she was a capable and conscientious practitioner in terms of her dealings with service users. However, that must be qualified by the fact that the Registrant knew the importance of record keeping but that she disregarded it, despite efforts by her employer to assist her.

136. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had made substantial admissions, that she had engaged with the regulatory process, that she had some difficult personal circumstances, and that she had provided evidence of developing insight in that she acknowledged her mistakes in her reflective statement and in her oral evidence. The Panel did not accept a point made in submissions by Mr Bousfield that the Registrant prioritised multi-agency, rather than internal recording, and that the former was more important. The Panel did not consider that to be supported by the evidence or that this was the Registrant’s case.

137. The principal aggravating features in this case were the duration and persistence of the Registrant’s failings, the extent of delays, and the fact that her omissions were such as to place vulnerable service users at risk of harm. Proper record keeping was an essential element of safeguarding, but the Registrant had failed to take opportunities offered to her by her employers to remedy her deficiencies.

138. The Panel found that the Registrant had expressed remorse and demonstrated some insight into her failings in record keeping. Whilst her level of insight was sufficient to protect public with restrictions upon her practice, there was a troubling lack of evidence of remediation.  She had provided no evidence of having undertaken CPD and had not been proactive in keeping her skills and knowledge up to date.

139. The Panel then considered the various sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. The nature of the misconduct was too serious to make no order because there was a risk of a recurrence of her failings if allowed to return to unrestricted practice.

140. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order, but decided that it was not in the public interest, because the facts of this case cannot be said to represent a minor or isolated incident.  There was not a low risk of recurrence and she had not taken remedial action. Furthermore, the level of insight was too limited to consider this sanction. 

141. The Panel then considered carefully whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate.  In considering paragraphs 30-39 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s failings were capable of remedy in relation to record keeping and time management and that the public could be protected, subject to appropriate and verifiable conditions on her practice. The Panel did not consider that the persistence of her past failings would prevent the Registrant from complying with conditions.  She has engaged with the regulatory process and can be expected to comply with conditions and to make a determined effort to do so.  The Panel has formulated conditions that are not wholly dependent on her returning to practice or finding a social work position in the near future.  The Panel was satisfied that conditions of regular and frequent focussed supervision and reporting would provide appropriate protection for the public and maintain confidence in the profession if the Registrant were to return to practice as a Social Worker. A period of 18 months was necessary for the Registrant to demonstrate remediation whilst ensuring public protection and satisfying the wider public interest.

142. A Suspension Order was not necessary or proportionate where Conditions of Practice Order can provide adequate public protection and maintain public confidence. The Panel ultimately decided that the Registrant’s behaviour was capable of remedy and wanted to give her the opportunity to demonstrate this. In relation to a Striking-Off Order, the Panel did not think that it was able to conclude that the Registrant’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with her continued registration if she is able to gain greater insight and remedy her failings.  Such an order was neither necessary nor proportionate.

143. A future Panel reviewing this case may be assisted  by the following:-
• Testimonials from any relevant paid or unpaid work;
• Evidence of regular continuing professional development, demonstrating that she is keeping her knowledge and skills up to date, whether employed or not as a Social Worker.

Order

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order comes into effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Elizabeth Anne Chambers, must comply with the following conditions of practice: 
1. Whether or not employed as a Social Worker you must formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:
• Record keeping
• Time management
• Use of the relevant social work case management recording system (if employed in social work).

2. Whether or not employed as a Social Worker, within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

3. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered with the HCPC as a Social Worker and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of commencing work as a Social Worker. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

4. If employed as a Social Worker you must meet fortnightly with your supervisor for the first three months and thereafter on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

5. If employed as a Social Worker you must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your record keeping, time management and progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan. Such reports are to be provided every six months and 14 days prior to any review of this order.

6. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you commence or cease to be employed as a Social Worker.

7. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you as a Social Worker.

8. 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 social work;
B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with as a Social Worker (at the time of application); and
C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application) as a Social Worker.

Notes

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 22 June 2019.

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Mrs Elizabeth Anne Chambers

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
24/11/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice