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 conduct a full / accurate assessment
Profession: Practitioner psychologist
Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (updated in August 2012)
- Standard 1. You must act in the best interests of service users
- Standard 6. You must act within the limits of your knowledge, skills and experience and, if necessary, refer the matter to another practitioner
- Standard 7. You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners
- Standard 10. You must keep accurate records
Standards of proficiency for practitioner psychologists (updated in August 2012)
- Standard 1. Be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice
- Standard 2.2. Understand the need to promote the best interests of service users and carers at all times
- Standard 2.4. Understand the need to address practices which present a risk to or from service users and carers, or others
- Standard 4. Be able to practise as an autonomous professional, exercising their own professional judgement
- Standard 4.1. Be able to assess a situation, determine its nature and severity and call upon the required knowledge and experience to deal with it
- Standard 4.2. Be able to initiate resolution of issues and be able to exercise personal initiative
- Standard 4.3. Recognise that they are personally responsible for, and must be able to justify, their decisions and recommendations
- Standard 4.4. Be able to make informed judgements on complex issues using the information available
An employer raised concerns about a psychologist who did not report a service user’s suicidal thoughts to their supervisor or any other professionals. This was despite it happening repeatedly and after recording a case note. Following an appointment with the registrant, the servicer user made a suicide attempt and was taken to hospital. The registrant delayed informing her line supervisor about this despite having received a police report.
The registrant attended the hearing and was represented. The Panel felt that the registrant owed a duty of care to the service use. At the time, the service user was extremely vulnerable and at risk of causing himself harm. The Panel was satisfied that by failing to complete an appropriate assessment and by not immediately informing her supervisor or other health professionals, the registrant failed to promote and protect the interests of service users.
The registrant to be in serious breach of the standards, which it felt amounted to misconduct. The Panel found that the registrant lacked insight and lacked effective remediation. The Panel also determined there was a risk of repetition. It felt the registrant had brought her profession into disrepute by breaching a fundamental tenet of the profession. This was given that the primary duty of a practitioner psychologist is to safeguard service users from harm. The Panel came to the conclusion that a striking-off order was the only way to protect the public, given the registrant’s inability to remedy her misconduct.
Measures we put in place to protect the public
The Conduct and Competence Committee imposed a striking-off order.
- Learning material
- Case study
- Cofrestredig, Employers
- Practitioner psychologists