Mrs Sarah E Pritchard

Preliminary Matters

Application to proceed in private
1. Ms O’Connor, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for parts of the hearing to be heard in private. She told the Panel that the documents provided to it contained references to the health of the Registrant and the health and private life of Service User A. She invited the Panel to exercise its discretion to consider references to that information in private.

2. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that when deciding whether all or part of a hearing is held in private, it must have regard to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is reflected in the Panel Rules. The Panel has a discretion to exclude the press or public if it is satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice or necessary to protect the private life of an individual. The decision to sit in private may relate to all or part of a hearing. If the Panel finds that the exceptions to Article 6 are engaged, it should then consider what steps can be taken to allow as much of the hearing as possible to take place in public.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Article 6 rights of the Registrant and Service User A are engaged in these proceedings, but that they could be protected by proceeding in private when these issues were considered. The hearing in all other respects could proceed in public.

Background
4. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist. She has been employed by North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) since 8 March 2021 as a Specialist Mental Health Practitioner within the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.

5. Prior to her employment by the Trust, the Registrant was employed by Keele University (‘the University’) as a Mental Health Adviser and was managed by Service User A. On the last day of her employment with the University, the Registrant submitted a grievance against Service User A.

6. The grievance was investigated by the University. Prior to the outcome being announced, on 22 April 2021, the Registrant accessed and read the confidential medical records of Service User A.

7. On 27 April 2021 the University determined the grievance lodged by the Registrant against Service User A, upholding some of the complaints while dismissing others.

8. On 29 June 2021, Service User A referred concerns about the Registrant’s work at the University to the HCPC. The regulator did not proceed with those concerns.

9. Service User A made a subject access request to the Trust on 13 November 2021 for information as to who had accessed his medical records. This information was provided to him on 19 November 2021. On 26 November 2021 Service User A complained to the Trust that the Registrant had accessed his private information without justification. An investigation was undertaken by the Trust’s information governance team which was satisfied there was no evidence that the Registrant had shared Service User A’s documentation with anyone else. The report in respect of the data breach was dated 24 January 2022.

10. Service User A also notified the HCPC of the situation in respect of the Registrant accessing his personal data on 26 November 2021.

11. The Trust commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Registrant on 16 December 2021 in respect of the breach of patient confidentiality. When interviewed on 12 January 2022, the Registrant admitted accessing the information and denied sharing it with anyone or using the information in any way. She was issued with a final written warning by the Trust on 8 February 2022, this warning was to remain on her record of employment for two years.

12. The HCPC investigated the data breach concern referred by Service User A and, on 18 July 2023, an Investigating Committee Panel determined that the Registrant did have a case to answer in respect of the allegations set out above.

13. The HCPC and the Registrant thereafter explored determining the matter by consent, ultimately agreeing that the matter was suitable for disposal by way of a Consent Order and suspension from the register for a period of six months. The Registrant signified her agreement to such a disposal by consent on 11 January 2024.

Submissions
14. Ms O’Connor invited the Panel to adopt the skeleton argument she had submitted as her submission to the Panel. She had nothing to add to those submissions.

15. Mr Shadenbury confirmed that he also sought to adopt the HCPC skeleton argument submissions, with which he agreed. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant engaged in ongoing reflection in respect of the concerns and had provided detailed reflection documents to the Panel. She had discussed her potential suspension with the Trust to manage the impact upon her caseload. Mr Shadenbury told the Panel that if the Order was imposed as proposed, the 28-day appeal period would be used by the Registrant and the Trust to reallocate her caseload as appropriate.

Decision
16. The Panel carefully considered all the information before it, which included:
a. 237 page main bundle of documents;
b. 7 page skeleton argument from the HCPC;
c. 4 page service bundle; and
d. 2 page addendum document on behalf of the Registrant.

17. The Panel took into account the guidance contained within the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel understood that it could conclude the case on an expedited basis, based on the terms of the draft Consent Order. Alternatively, the Panel could reject the proposal and set the case down for a full substantive hearing.

18. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC’s case was well founded in the light of the information and admissions before it. The Panel decided that accessing personal information about Service User A without clear clinical justification mounted to misconduct, which was admitted and accepted by the Registrant. The Panel also noted that the Registrant accepted that her conduct was dishonest and that she had provided a reflective piece addressing this element of the allegation, which was initially not admitted by her.

19. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepts that she is currently personally impaired. It was satisfied that although she has demonstrated insight, remorse, and has undertaken steps towards remediation, her actions were serious enough that a finding of impairment based on the public component was necessary to protect service users and required to maintain public confidence in the profession. Her actions in accessing personal medical information in respect of Service User A, regardless of the circumstances, undermines fundamental tenets of the profession and the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics set by the HCPC for all regulated professions, particularly those relating to patient confidentiality, admitting when things have gone wrong and being honest and trustworthy. In these circumstances the Panel considered that there was sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that the facts amounted to misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired.

20. Having satisfied itself that the facts and statutory grounds were made out, the Panel considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy. It noted that paragraph 121 specifically provides that:
“a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.”

21. The guidance notes that the types of cases where suspension is appropriate will typically exhibit the following factors:
a. the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
b. the registrant has insight;
c. the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
d. there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

22. The Panel agreed that the Registrant’s misconduct was a serious breach of the behaviour expected of her by her regulatory body. Her conduct could have amounted to a criminal offence.

23. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s reflective pieces, noting that she had fully taken on board the serious nature of the concerns. It was satisfied that she had identified what had been wrong with her conduct and was reassured that it would not happen again. It was not aware of any other concerns about her practice, and noted the testimonials provided by her manager and former colleagues.

24. The Panel agree with the HCPC submissions that the issues are unlikely to be repeated due to the changes that the Registrant has described and implemented and the particular circumstances that led her to accessing the personal information of Service User A without clinical justification.

25. The proposal for consensual disposal was, in the Panel’s opinion, reached as a result of proper and well considered discussions between the parties. The explanation that had been articulated on behalf of the HCPC was well reasoned and justified. The Panel agreed that a period of suspension would properly protect the public and that six months was a length of time that could be reached by a Panel at a substantive hearing.

26. The Panel considered that taking no action would not be appropriate in this instance - it would not provide the requisite level of public protection that this case necessitated. It also found that a Caution Order would be insufficient to mark the seriousness of the matters that led to its finding of misconduct. Conditions of Practice were not appropriate in the circumstances as the misconduct did not relate to her practice.

27. The Panel did not consider a more onerous sanction was necessary or proportionate in this case. Disposing of the case by way of consent as proposed would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel was satisfied that the wider public interest is sufficiently protected by the imposition of a Suspension Order of six months, which was sufficient to uphold proper professional standards.

28. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the disposal of this matter by consent would:
a. protect the public; and
b. not undermine public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process; and
c. the matter was not so serious as to make a public substantive hearing necessary.

29. The Panel therefore approved the disposal of this matter by a Suspension Order for a period of six months as set out in the consent Order before it.

30. There was no application for an Interim Order by the HCPC.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mrs Sarah Pritchard for a period of six months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for Mrs Sarah E Pritchard