The GSCC continue to operate as ‘normal’ pending the transfer in March 2012 to the to be renamed Health Professionals Council http://www.hpc-uk.org/ - or one should say the proposed move in 2012. Many in the Community Care Blog Care Space http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/gscc-to-be-scrapped-health-professionals-8085.aspx#32964 have mixed feelings about it.
The GSCC gives advice on the implications of the recent announcement of their demise here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ and click on big red “i” icon. In short business as usual – mmmmm.
Meanwhile the GSCC has published a number of recent outcomes from their Conduct Committee. This is a very odd one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/435BAC0D-2BA8-493F-B815-9DD47CB9FFBC/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONHIBBERTS.pdf
Essentially the GSCC dropped the case after it was unable to convince a local authority manager to give evidence and to proceed without it would amount to hearsay. Now you would think the GSCC would have realised this before taking it to Committee.
The GSCC are in a difficult position because they cannot force either a registrant or witness to attend – they have no teeth in effect. Not helpful. And of course they have no powers over employers and the code of conduct relating to them is not worth the paper they are written on – it’s just a wish list in effect.
Whoever drew up this legislation and the employers codes needs a jolly good lesson in ‘how not to make a balls-up.’
Other recent concluded hearings include this one: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AA176AF6-7A81-4CB7-8BD5-12FE7E710EA0/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONSIMPSON.pdf
Note the offending behaviour relates to 2008 – either this was part of the backlog or the GSCC were not previously aware of it. The naughty boy was looking at pornography on his employer’s computer.
He was suspended for two years.
Another: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/30BF47BA-8D5E-4B6B-8329-DCE583C46253/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONMAHABIR.pdf resulted in a one year suspension. This did go back to issues between 2004 – 2008 and the GSCC were made aware of his drink-drive conviction of December 2004 (after he was first registered by the GSCC) in, and I find it odd how they term it, “around 19th November 2008;” either it was or it was not the 19th November 2008 – what’s with this “around” business?
So exactly what were the GSCC doing between (“around)” the 19th November 2008 and 21st July 2010? Not a lot it would seem. The registrant had asked that his GSCC hearing be postponed as he claimed it would prejudice his Employment Tribunal, which it appears is still pending.
And the disposal by way of a one year suspension, is that proportionate especially as he did eventually cough up the details to the GSCC, albeit four years later? Wilt thinks no – far more appropriate would have been an admonishment.
However, the registrant only has himself to blame as he was not in attendance to defend himself or give evidence. With the GSCC that, as a friend would say, is like a turkey voting for an early Christmas.
Each case is worth a read – click on the links above.
The GSCC have published their latest up-coming hearings here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/Upcoming_hearings/
Among some interesting ones are:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC31BFE1-A33D-4596-A2C9-F4925B29C6D8/0/SummaryJanjua.pdf
AND:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/134F01BD-EEF2-4797-92BD-3F07B424BDA3/0/SummaryNia.pdf
AND
http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F6D734C8-77A7-4D4D-B828-54CA474507A7/0/SummaryHenderson.pdf
Why does the GSCC need to get involved in this matter http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B002178D-48C2-4B2F-ADF0-D1309F474498/0/SummaryNyabunze.pdf one is left to wonder?
Wilt
Community Care also reported on this case:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/07/29/115006/misconduct-case-dropped-due-to-lack-of-evidence.htm
Interesting article – Community Care have got, from somewhere, a little more insight to this matter. They give a less favourable commentary on the GSCC.
They report that the relevant manager (key witness) had “not been asked to attend the hearing.” Now that is something different to how I read the GSCC adjudication.
Not asking the witness to attend and her unavailability or unwillingness to cooperate are somewhat material in difference – what is the truth here. Either Community Care have cocked up in their reporting/analysis (not unknown) or the GSCC are being less than full in their reporting (also not unknown) of the facts.
On balance, I just do not know – Wilt needs to do some fishing around and speak to some informers.
Wilt smells a story here.
Wilt (packing suitcases)
Update:
ReplyDeleteTwo more misconduct cases have been published by the GSCC, here:
http://www.gscc.org.uk/Conduct/Conduct_hearings/recently_concluded_hearings/
One has no download of the findings as it was held in private, but found no misconduct (not proved) in the case of Joanne Henderson – why do they say “not proved” as distinct from ‘not guilty’ or ‘no misconduct found? In effect the latter is the material position.
It’s almost a grudging type of description – as if to say next time we will get you! The one that got away, perhaps is what they are trying to convey – or is Wilt being over sensitive? What is wrong with these people?
Meanwhile another, presumable back-log case, here: http://www.gscc.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2A509D3B-CC10-487D-8C08-FA31B86FDC27/0/NOTICEOFDECISIONSMITH.pdf going back to issues between 1997 and July 2008.
Now presumably the woman was sacked (but it is unclear) – if so why the delay of two years by the GSCC? Again the registrant did not attend the hearing. Dork.
Wilt
I found the case where the senior practitioner obtained a further role with another employer and failed to tell either employer this a ludicrous issue for the GSCC to get involved with. We can take other jobs if we want and it is only an issue if the other job impacts edversely on the performance of the first. Now if the two jobs were to be performed during the same hours then perhaps things could be seen in a different light.
ReplyDeleteWatchful
ReplyDeleteI do agree. Even if there was some kind of conflict it is a local contractual (potentially disciplinary issue) and definitely not a matter for the Regulator.
However, the Regulator needs their pound of flesh if only to sustain evidence (sic) for their own curious and questionable existence.
What would happen we wonder if the codes of conduct were applied to the regulator – we suspect they might be hung, drawn and quartered?
What a nice thought!
What is your assessment, do you think the other Regulators will go to the wall like the GSCC?
Wilt