Our case studies are based on real life fitness to practise concerns we have received
This case study was published in 2019 and refers to the standards of proficiency in place at that time.
Type of concern: Failure to maintain adequate records
Standards of proficiency for dietitians (updated in March 2013)
- Standard 1. Be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice
- Standard 8. Be able to communicate effectively
- Standard 10. Be able to maintain records appropriately
- Standard 11. Be able to reflect on and review practice
- Standard 12. Be able to assure the quality of their practice
- Standard 14. Be able to draw on appropriate knowledge and skills to inform practice
A dietitian’s employer raised concerns about their clinical practice and conduct, following a number of incidents relating to six different service users. This included a failure to record sufficient details of dietetic assessments, failure to address the needs of a service user adequately and failure to make the necessary referrals within a reasonable timeframe.
The registrant was not present at the hearing nor was represented. The Panel considered that the shortcomings occurred during a period when additional supervision and support for the registrant had been put in place. The evidence given suggested that the registrant’s failure to perform tasks was not wilful or deliberate. However, the Panel agreed that the shortcomings were serious because they had the potential to result in harm to the service users concerned. The Panel determined that the matters constituted a lack of competence and found that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.
The Panel agreed that the registrant’s failings had not been remediated. Moreover, the Panel found it necessary to reassure members of the public. Otherwise, they would lose confidence in the profession and the regulatory process if a practitioner whom had not remediated their shortcomings were permitted to return to practise unrestricted. The Panel then went on to consider which sanction to impose to protect the public. It decided that a twelve-month suspension order would prevent the registrant from practicing until they were able to demonstrate safe and effective practice.
Measures we put in place to protect the public
The Conduct and Competence Committee imposed a twelve-month suspension order.
- Learning material
- Case study