Miss Carolyn J Brown
(as found proved at Substantive Hearing):
During the course of your employment as an Occupational Therapist at the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust [“the Trust”] between 1 June 2009 and 28 February 2013, you:
1. Required a high level of supervision in order to ensure that your caseload was managed safely and effectively;
2. Did not demonstrate appropriate clinical reasoning skills in that you:
a) Did not consistently identify which occupational therapy assessments were required without support, in that you would:
(i) Not carry out assessments that were required, and/ or
(ii) Carry out assessments that were not required;
b) Did not carry out assessments in a timely manner;
c) Did not consistently identify a "problem list”;
d) Did not consistently formulate appropriate treatment and discharge plans;
3. Did not consistently complete patient records accurately or in a timely manner;
4. Did not consistently communicate effectively with:
a) Colleagues, or
5. Did not demonstrate appropriate manual handling skills in that you required prompting as to appropriate positioning during therapy assessments;
6. Did not consistently identify when or in which cases referrals should be made to other services or agencies;
7. Did not prioritise your caseload appropriately;
8. Did not consistently delegate tasks appropriately;
9. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 8 constitute lack of competence.
10. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. Miss Brown has not attended the hearing in person, but she is present on the telephone.
2. This case was originally listed for hearing on 5 December 2017; Miss Brown had attended in person on that occasion together with Mrs Reynolds an Occupational Therapist who had been guiding Miss Brown in accordance with condition 3 of the Conditions of Practice Order and had submitted documentation. Unfortunately, the hearing could not commence and had to be adjourned due to lack of time to conclude the case.
3. On the 5 December 2017 the Panel had read the 900 page bundle and had made numerous annotations on it.
4. When the Panel arrived for the hearing today it became clear that it had not been sent the original bundle. The original bundles containing the annotations could not be located which meant that the Panel would have to reread the bundle in full.
5. The Panel raised its concerns as to whether it was appropriate to continue the hearing today given the fact that it was not provided with a bundle until about 1130 and that Mrs Reynolds may not be available to give evidence.
6. Miss Brown stated that she would prefer the hearing to go ahead today if possible but that if there was an adjournment she would be able to attend a hearing on a Monday. She stated that she did not require Mrs Reynolds to give evidence but she indicated that Mrs Reynolds could be contacted by telephone today if anyone had any questions for her.
7. Ms Brzezina, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the HCPC was neutral on the question of an adjournment.
8. Having considered the documentation submitted by Mrs Reynolds the Panel wished to question her. However, the Panel was informed that it was not possible for Mrs Reynolds and Miss Brown to be on the telephone at the same time which meant that Miss Brown would not hear Miss Reynold’s evidence. The Panel considered that this meant that a fair hearing was not possible. Accordingly it has concluded that the case should be adjourned.
9. It will not be possible to schedule a further hearing before the order expires on 14 January 2018 and therefore the Panel has decided that it is appropriate to extend the existing Conditions of Practice Order for three months.
10. The Panel wishes to make it clear that it has made no decision on the merits of the case but has extended the order to preserve the status quo so as to allow a full review hearing to take place.
11. Although it is entirely a matter for Miss Brown as to what evidence she presents at the next hearing the Panel, based on its limited consideration of the documents submitted, considers that the next Panel would be assisted by evidence from an Occupational Therapist or a clinical colleague who has actually seen Miss Brown’s work and who can comment on the following aspects of her work:
a. Case and caseload management;
b. Clinical reasoning;
c. Maintaining patient records;
d. Application of manual handling techniques;
12. In order that the next hearing is effective the Panel makes the following directions:
1) The future hearing is to be listed on a Monday to enable the Registrant to attend.
2) A full set of papers is to be sent to all Panel members and the Legal Assessor no later than ten days before the reconvened hearing.
3) Facilities are to made available for Miss Brown’s witnesses to give evidence by telephone if they cannot attend the hearing in person.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Miss Carolyn J Brown
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|03/01/2018||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Adjourned|
|05/12/2017||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Adjourned|
|15/12/2014||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Conditions of Practice|