case examiner decision rosie pate ftps -17370 · case reference number ftps -17370 date the concern...
TRANSCRIPT
Case Examiner Decision Rosie Pate FTPS-17370
Contents
The role of the case examiners .................................................................................................. 3
Administrative details ................................................................................................................ 4
Decision summary ...................................................................................................................... 5
Summary of the initial concerns ................................................................................................ 6
Preliminary issues ...................................................................................................................... 8
The realistic prospect test - facts ............................................................................................. 10
The realistic prospect test - grounds ....................................................................................... 11
The realistic prospect test – current impairment .................................................................... 12
Referral to a hearing ................................................................................................................ 16
Accepted disposal .................................................................................................................... 18
Final decision............................................................................................................................ 23
3
The role of the case examiners
The case examiners perform a filtering function in the fitness to practise process, and their
primary role is to determine whether the case ought to be considered by adjudicators at a
formal hearing. The wider purpose of the fitness to practise process is not to discipline the
social worker for past conduct, but rather to consider whether the social worker’s current
fitness to practise might be impaired because of the issues highlighted. In reaching their
decisions, case examiners are mindful that Social Work England’s primary objective is to
protect the public.
Case examiners apply the ‘realistic prospect’ test. As part of their role, the case examiners will
consider whether there is a realistic prospect:
• the facts alleged could be found proven by adjudicators
• adjudicators could find that one of statutory grounds for impairment is engaged
• adjudicators could find the social worker's fitness to practise is currently impaired
Case examiners review cases on the papers only. The case examiners are limited, in that,
they are unable to hear and test live evidence, and therefore they are unable to make
findings of fact.
4
Administrative details
Case examiners
Lay case examiner Khairun Butt
Professional case examiner Julie Guihen
Social worker that is the subject of the concern(s)
Name Rosie Pate
Registration number SW113134
Date of registration 24/10/16
Case details
Case reference number FTPS-17370
Date the concern was raised 21/04/20
5
Decision summary
Decision summary
Provisional decision Accepted disposal – Conditions of practice – 1 year
Final decision Accepted disposal – Conditions of practice – 1 year
Executive summary
The case examiners found a realistic prospect of the regulatory concern being found
proven, a realistic prospect that it would amount to the statutory ground of misconduct,
and a realistic prospect that the social worker’s fitness to practise would be found to be
currently impaired.
The case examiners have determined it is not in the public interest to refer this matter to
the adjudicators. Rather, they have decided to dispose of this matter without a hearing and
to close the case by issuing a conditions of practice order for one year. The social worker
has signed the accepted disposal response form on the 27 October 2020 which evidences
that they understand the terms of the proposed disposal of their fitness to practise case
and accepts them in full.
The case examiners remain satisfied that it is not in the public interest to refer this matter
to a substantive hearing; the case examiners final determination is that this case should be
concluded by way of accepted disposal as an alternative.
The case examiners’ full reasons are set out below.
6
Summary of the initial concerns
Complainant’s details
Complainant’s name Eifion Burke
Relationship to the social
worker
Head of Service for Wirral Local Authority (hereafter
referred to as Local Authority C)
Details of the complaint
Date complaint was
received
21.04.20
Complaint summary Local Authority C advised Social Work England they had
received a complaint from a member of the public who
found confidential paper files and information relating to
children and families in a property she had moved into. The
social worker was a previous tenant at the address and it
appears that she had left the documents unsecured in the
communal living room.
Regulatory concerns
1. Whilst employed as a Social Worker for Wirral council, you failed to ensure documents
containing sensitive information regarding service users were kept securely and in a
manner that prevented unauthorised access to that information, as it is alleged the
documents were left unsecured at this being an address
you are believed to have previously occupied.
By reason of RC1, your fitness to practise as a social worker is impaired by reason of
misconduct.
7
Key evidence considered by the case examiners
The case examiners have read all of the evidence available to them. Key documents
considered include:
• Submissions of the social worker, dated 8 June 2020
• Reference from previous employer, Children in Care Team, Wigan Council, dated
15 April 2020
• Reference from current employer, Barnardos
• IT Security Incident Register, dated 11 March 2020
• Information regarding document storage at Local Authority C, dated 3 July 2020
• Copies of the documents found at the property
8
Preliminary issues
Conflicts of interest
Declaration: I am not aware of any material conflicts of interest that could impact upon
my consideration of this case.
Lay case examiner Khairun Butt
Professional case examiner Julie Guihen
Requests for further information or submissions, or any other preliminary
issues that have arisen
Case examiners acknowledge that the social worker has been given two opportunities to
provide submissions, she did so during the investigation on 8 June 2020 and was offered a
further opportunity to review the evidence and provide further submissions on 7
September 2020. Case examiners have seen an email from the social worker declining to
make further comments; they are satisfied that she has been given a fair opportunity to do
so.
Case examiners note that the regulatory concern suggests the confidential files were left in
Room 4 of the named property; they are of the view that this was likely to be the social
worker’s allocated room in a property that had multiple tenants. The evidence suggests
that the paperwork was left in a communal area of the property and not in the social
worker’s bedroom. Case examiners have amended the regulatory concern so that it does
not specify which room the documents were left in.
The regulatory concern now reads:
1. Whilst employed as a Social Worker for Wirral Council, you failed to ensure documents
containing sensitive information regarding service users were kept securely and in a
manner that prevented unauthorised access to that information, as it is alleged the
documents were left unsecured at this being an address you are
believed to have previously occupied
Case examiners note that the social worker has provided submissions in relation to leaving
the documents in the property, rather than the room explicitly and for this reason, they do
9
not consider the amendment to be a significant one that would change the nature or
gravity of the concern. Consequently, case examiners are satisfied the amended regulatory
concern does not require further submissions from the social worker.
10
The realistic prospect test - facts
Is there a realistic prospect of the facts as stated being found?
1 Whilst employed as a Social Worker for Wirral Council, you failed to ensure documents
containing sensitive information regarding service users were kept securely and in a
manner that prevented unauthorised access to that information, as it is alleged the
documents were left unsecured at this being an address you
are believed to have previously occupied.
Case examiners have seen the evidence from local authority C, which confirms that the
social worker was employed with them, through an agency, from 25 September 2017 to 19
January 2018. Local Authority C has also confirmed that the documents left unsecured
related to cases that were allocated to the social worker between 3 October 2017 and 29
January 2018.
Case examiners note that the social worker accepts she lived at the above address and she
has provided an email from the letting agent which indicates she was a tenant there from
15 September 2016 to September 2018. This evidences that the social worker resided at
this property during the period she was working for the local authority.
Case examiners have read the IT Security Incident Register which details the complaint from
the new tenant in the property and the documents she found there, relating to children
and families receiving social work intervention from the local authority. The complainant
advises that she found the documents in the living room and that these documents
contained a great deal of sensitive information about the children and their families. Case
examiners have seen the documents which were discovered by the complainant and these
contain names, dates of birth, addresses and sensitive personal information about
children’s lives and their histories. Case examiners note that the documents include
handwritten notes of parenting assessments, court orders and reports of risk analysis.
Case examiners are therefore satisfied that this regulatory concern has a realistic
prospect of being found proven, should the matter go forward to the adjudicators.
Is there a realistic prospect of facts being found if the regulatory concerns
were amended?
Not applicable.
11
The realistic prospect test - grounds
For the facts that have passed the realistic prospect test, is there a realistic
prospect that they could amount to an allegation of impaired fitness to
practise by reason of the statutory grounds?
The statutory ground case examiners have been asked to consider is misconduct. They are
aware that ‘misconduct’ denotes serious acts or omissions, suggesting a significant
departure from what would be proper in the circumstances. To understand what would be
appropriate in the circumstances, case examiners have considered the conduct of the social
worker, the context of this allegation and the impact on those concerned.
At the time of the concern, Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) Standards of
proficiency 2017 were applicable, and the case examiners consider that adjudicators may
decide the social worker failed to adhere to the following standards:
Social workers must:
7.3 understand the principles of information governance and be aware of the safe and
effective use of health and social care information
10.2 recognise the need to manage records and all other information in accordance with
applicable legislation, protocols and guidelines
15.1 understand the need to maintain the safety of service users, carers and colleagues.
The social worker accepts that she must have left the documents in her previous home and
states “this has been a genuine mistake on my part and I have not purposefully breached
confidentiality”.
Case examiners have considered the social worker’s conduct and make the following
observations:
• Social workers have access to some of the most private and intimate details of
people’s private lives and the public must be able to trust that they will act with
utmost integrity and care to protect this information and avoid unauthorised
access.
• The social worker at some point made the decision to take these documents home
with her and she appears to have done so without seeking any form of approval or
permission from line management. The social worker submits that she did not have
access to anywhere in the office that was secure and this is why she took documents
12
home. The local authority has provided evidence which contradicts this. Case
examiners cannot resolve conflicts in evidence but they are of the view that even if
the social worker was not provided with secure storage for documents at work, she
should have addressed that in the office. Taking documents home is unlikely to be
any more secure than leaving them in an unlocked drawer in the office.
• Not only did the social worker take home very sensitive documents, she did not
ensure they were securely stored at home. The evidence suggests that the social
worker did not leave the documents in her own room, which may have allowed
some security. Instead, the documents were found in a communal area of the
house, 18 months after she left the property. During this period, a significant
number of people may have had access these documents.
Case examiners have considered the impact of the social worker’s actions. If these
documents had been found by someone who did not dispose of them correctly or who
chose to use them to contact the individuals detailed in the reports, the potential for
significant harm would be very high. The emotional harm for individuals who trusted their
confidential information would be protected cannot be underestimated.
Further, there may be serious implications for the local authority as a result of the social
worker’s actions. As well as reputational damage, breaches of data protection legislation
can result in large fines for organisations as well as the risk of litigation from the people
affected by the breach. Consequently, public funds may be affected by the local authority
being liable for the social worker’s actions.
Case examiners are of the view that this was a serious omission in the social worker’s
practice, with significant implications for service users and her employer. As such they are
satisfied that this matter has a realistic prospect of amounting to the statutory ground of
misconduct.
The realistic prospect test – current impairment
Fitness to practise history
Case examiners are not aware of any previous fitness to practise concerns.
13
Is there a realistic prospect that, if the case were to proceed to a hearing, the
adjudicators might find the social worker’s fitness to practise is currently
impaired?
Having concluded there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators establishing the statutory
ground of misconduct, case examiners must consider whether there is a realistic prospect
of adjudicators finding current impairment.
The case examiners have reminded themselves that the purpose of regulation is not to
punish a social worker for past mistakes. Rather, the regulatory process seeks to establish
whether a social worker is safe and fit to practise today and in the future.
The case examiners have assessed both the personal and public elements of current
impairment.
Personal impairment
Case examiners are of the view that isolated mistakes are unlikely to be repeated if a social
worker recognises what went wrong and takes action to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
In considering current impairment, the case examiners have considered whether the social
worker has demonstrated insight, whether the conduct is remediable and if so, whether
the social worker has shown remediation and whether there is a likelihood the matters
alleged will be repeated.
Insight – Case examiners are of the view that the social worker has shown remorse and
demonstrated some insight. In her submissions, the social worker stated, “I would like to
offer my apologies if my actions have caused any harm to children or families that I worked
with, this is something that I would never want”. The social worker has co-operated with
Social Work England’s investigation and informed her current and previous employer that
it was ongoing. However, the social worker’s limited submissions do not, in the case
examiners’ view, fully acknowledge the severity of the misconduct and it appears that at
times she attempts to minimise her actions. For example, she submits that the letting
agents had checked her room when she was vacating the property. Further, case examiners
consider that the social worker’s comment about taking documents home because of a lack
of storage at work, lacks credibility.
Remediation – Case examiners consider that this conduct is remediable, in that the social
worker could take steps to ensure that she fully understands the principles of information
handling and confidentiality and promotes this at all times whilst at work.
The social worker submits that she has completed GDPR training with each of her
subsequent employers although she does not provide evidence of this training. Case
14
examiners are of the view that even if these courses have been completed, they require
more detailed evidence of reflection to satisfy them that the social worker has fully
understood the training and implications for her practice.
Case examiners note that there are positive testimonials of the social worker’s professional
conduct from both her previous and her current line manager. While it is reassuring to note
that she is a capable and trusted professional while at work, this does not reduce the
seriousness of the conduct that led to the referral to the regulator.
Likelihood of repetition – The social worker submits that she can “only apologise and
continue to take more care in handling confidential information”.
Case examiners are mindful that the incident appears to have been an isolated event. While
the social worker has provided apologies to the service users and to the local authority, she
has not fully demonstrated that she appreciates the severity of the data breach and
explicitly advised what she should have done to avoid this. Because of the limited insight
from the social worker and insufficient evidence of how she would prevent such a
recurrence of this behaviour, case examiners are of the view that the adjudicators may
consider that there remains a risk of repetition.
Case examiners therefore consider that there is a realistic prospect that the social
worker’s fitness to practise may be found impaired on the personal element by
adjudicators.
Impairment on public interest grounds
Case examiners have then moved on to consider whether the social worker’s fitness to
practise could be considered impaired on the grounds of public interest. Case Examiner
Guidance (February 2020) states “Some concerns are so serious that action is required even
if the social worker poses no current risk to the public. This is because a failure to sanction
a social worker in such cases might undermine public’s confidence in social work as a
profession”.
The member of the public who found these documents described that she was “shocked as
to how they had been so carelessly left behind by someone”.
Social workers are permitted access to people’s homes and often interact with vulnerable
people on an unsupervised basis; the professional relationship between social workers and
service users requires trust that a social worker has integrity and will protect service users’
confidentiality and not act in any way that may cause harm. By leaving the documents
where they could have been found by a variety of individuals, the social worker placed
service users at risk of emotional, and potentially physical, harm, as well as the risk to her
employer in terms of legal repercussions and reputational damage.
15
Case examiners are of the view that members of the public would be troubled to learn that
a social worker had been allowed to practise unrestricted, after such a significant breach
of data protection. They therefore consider that there is a realistic prospect of the social
worker’s fitness to practise being found to be impaired on the grounds of public interest.
16
Referral to a hearing
Is there a public interest in referring the concerns to a hearing?
Case examiners must now turn their minds to whether it is in the public interest for this
matter to be referred to a final hearing to be considered by adjudicators. They have
considered whether there is any conflict in the evidence or the social worker denies the
facts alleged against them, which would require the matter to be referred to a hearing, as
set out in the case examiners guidance (February 2020), paragraph 30. The social worker in
this case accepts that she must have left the documents at her previous tenancy.
Paragraph 87 of the guidance states “in exceptional cases, a case may be so serious that
not holding a public hearing would carry a real risk of damaging public confidence in the
regulation of the profession”. While the case examiners have identified that this behaviour
was a serious breach of the professional standards, they are of the view that it does not fall
into the category of seriousness that would require a public hearing to maintain public
confidence in the regulation of social workers. Consequently, case examiners are satisfied
a referral to a hearing is not required for this reason.
The guidance advises in paragraph 88 that case examiners must refer cases to a hearing
“where they consider a removal order is required” as case examiners do not have powers
to remove social workers from the register. Case examiners acknowledge that for a social
worker who is well thought of by employers and who has no record of previous fitness to
practise concerns, a removal order would appear to be disproportionate. They have
reminded themselves that their role is not to punish the social worker for any misconduct
but to protect the public. If case examiners consider that the social worker requires
restriction on her practice to minimise the risk, then they have a range of sanctions
available to them as part of the accepted disposal process that they can propose.
Whilst the case examiners have determined there is a realistic prospect that adjudicators
would find the public interest is engaged in this case, they are of the view that the public
interest can be satisfied by their decision, and the reasons for that decision, being published
on Social Work England’s public register which can be found on its website.
The publication of this decision will provide the social worker with an opportunity to reflect
on and gain further insight into the circumstances of this case. The publication of this
matter will also highlight behaviour that falls short of acceptable standards in social work
and will act as an example to other member of the profession. Publication also
demonstrates that swift and appropriate action is taken in cases of alleged wrongdoing,
thus enhancing the public’s confidence in the social work profession.
17
Lastly, public interest also entails for need for proportionate decision-making. The case
examiners consider it is in the public interest to bring this matter to a prompt conclusion,
whilst also ensuring the public remains adequately protected. The case examiners consider
that this can be achieved through the accepted disposal process, detailed below.
18
Accepted disposal
Case outcome
Proposed outcome Final order – conditions of practice (1 year)
Reasoning
In considering the appropriate outcome in this case, case examiners have had regard to
Social Work England’s Sanctions Guidance and reminded themselves that the purpose of
sanction is not to punish the social worker but to protect the public and the wider public
interest.
Case examiners conclude that there is a realistic prospect that the regulatory concerns if
found proven by adjudicators would amount to the statutory grounds of misconduct.
Case examiners consider that the regulatory concern broadly relates to the need to
maintain high standards of professional conduct, particularly in relation to data protection.
This is a key tenet of the social work profession and there is clear evidence that the social
worker has left highly sensitive documents unsecured for a significant period of time. In
doing so, the social worker has fallen short of what is expected and breached professional
Standards.
As described above, case examiners have concluded that the public interest in this case can
be satisfied without referral to a hearing and have therefore determined in this instance
that it would be appropriate, fair and proportionate to offer the social worker the
opportunity to consider resolving this matter through accepted disposal, with measures
aimed to protect the public and support the social worker to practise safely, particularly
with regard to reflecting on her actions and potential impact of her conduct.
In reaching this determination, case examiners considered the available sanctions and have
determined a final order with conditions to be the most appropriate. In reaching this
decision they have considered each of the sanctions in turn, starting from the lowest until
they have reached a sanction that they consider to be the least restrictive sanction
necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest.
Case examiners have already determined that there is a realistic prospect that the social
worker’s fitness to practise would be found impaired. The Sanctions Guidance (Nov 2019)
advises “Impairment is when a social worker is not suitable to be registered without
19
restriction” (paragraph 71). The case examiners are therefore led to consider sanctions
which restrict the social worker’s practice. They note that the same paragraph makes
allowances for cases “where the mitigating factors put forward by the social worker in
defence such as insight and remediation are strong enough that restriction is not required”.
The case examiners have already determined that they do not consider that the social
worker has demonstrated sufficient insight or remediation. Therefore, the sanctions of no
further action, advice or a warning are considered inappropriate on the basis that these
outcomes will not restrict practice and therefore not sufficiently protect the public.
Suspension at this time is not considered the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect
the public and the wider public interest, given that the social worker has shown some
insight, is supported by her line-managers and is generally considered to be a capable
professional. In these circumstances, case examiners consider that a suspension order
would be wholly disproportionate.
Case examiners are of the view that the social worker appears to have the potential for
remediation, in terms of reflecting upon her data protection responsibilities. The primary
purpose of conditions of practice orders are to protect the public while a social worker
takes any necessary steps to remediate their fitness to practise. The case examiners
consider, if accepted by the social worker, a conditions of practice order over a period of
one year is sufficient to protect the public. This will allow her time to reflect upon her
actions and the potential impact on service users and her employers and on the reputation
of the profession and to satisfy the regulator that there will be no repetition of this conduct.
Case examiners are of the view that one year is sufficient for the social worker to
demonstrate remediation and a longer period is not necessary.
Case examiners consider that accepted disposal and conditions of practice will allow the
social worker to reflect further on her actions in a constructive way and to commit to
practising safely in the future.
Case examiners will now notify the social worker of their intention to suggest and seek the
social worker’s agreement to dispose of the matter accordingly. If the social worker does
not agree, or if case examiners revise their decision regarding the public interest in this
case, the matter will proceed to a final hearing. Case examiners request that the social
worker responds within 21 days of receiving this decision.
20
Content of the advice, warning or conditions
Conditions 1-11 (inclusive) should be in place for a one year period. In accordance with
paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 of The Social Workers Regulations 2018, the regulator must
review the conditions of practice order before its expiry. The social worker and/or Social
Work England can seek early review if new evidence becomes available to suggest the
current order needs to varied, replaced or removed.
1. You must notify Social Work England within 7 days of any professional appointment you
accept or are currently undertaking and provide the contact details of your employer,
agency or any organisation with which you have a contract or arrangement to provide
social work services, whether paid or voluntary.
2. You must allow Social Work England to exchange information with your employer,
agency or any organisation with which you have a contract or arrangement to provide
social work or educational services, and any reporter referred to in these conditions.
3. a. At any time you are providing social work services, which require you to be registered
with Social Work England, you must agree to the appointment of a reporter nominated by
you and approved by Social Work England. The reporter must be on Social Work England’s
register.
b. You must not start/restart work until these arrangements have been approved by Social
Work England.
c. You must allow your reporter and Social Work England to exchange information.
4. You must provide reports from your reporter to Social Work England every 6 months
from the date condition 3 comes into effect and at least 14 days prior to any review.
5. You must inform Social Work England within 7 days of receiving notice of any formal
disciplinary proceedings taken against you from the date these conditions take effect.
6. You must inform Social Work England within 7 days of receiving notice of any
investigations or complaints made against you from the date these conditions take effect.
7. You must inform Social Work England if you apply for social work employment / self-
employment (paid or voluntary) outside England within 7 days of the date of application.
8. You must inform Social Work England if you are registered or subsequently apply for
registration with any other UK regulator, overseas regulator or relevant authority within 7
days of the date of application [for future registration] or 7 days from the date these
21
conditions take effect [for existing registration].
9. You must read Social Work England’s ‘Professional Standards’ (July 2019), and provide a
written reflection to Social Work England within 3 months of when these conditions take
effect, focusing on how your conduct was below the accepted standard of a social worker,
outlining what you should have done differently. This reflective account, which should be
a minimum of 500 words and a maximum of 1000 words, should consider the following:
- what you should have done to ensure that the documents were stored securely during
your employment
- a full consideration of your responsibilities as a professional working with sensitive and
confidential documents
- the possible consequences for the service users whose documents were left in your
previous tenancy
- how your actions have the potential to impact on public confidence in the profession of
social work and on maintaining professional standards.
10. You must inform, within 7 days from the date these conditions take effect, the following
parties that your registration is subject to the conditions listed at 1 to 9, above:
• Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake social work
services whether paid or voluntary.
• Any locum, agency or out-of-hours service you are registered with or apply to be
registered with (at the time of application).
• Any prospective employer (at the time of application).
• Any organisation, agency or employer where you are using your social work
qualification/knowledge/skills in a non-qualified social work role, whether paid or
voluntary.
You must forward written evidence of your compliance with this condition to Social Work
England within 14 days from the date these conditions take effect.
11. You must permit Social Work England to disclose the above conditions, 1 to 10, to any
person requesting information about your registration status.
22
Response from the social worker
The social worker has indicated that she has read the decision of the case examiners and
understands the terms of the proposed disposal of her fitness to practise case and accepts
them in full. The social worker signed the accepted disposal response form on 27 October
2020.
Case examiner response
The social worker has accepted the conditions of practice order as proposed. Case
examiners are pleased to see from the social worker’s communication with Social Work
England, that she plans to address these conditions swiftly, indicating her commitment to
adhering to the conditions of practice order.
The conditions of practice order allows public safety to be assured as the regulator will
oversee their remediation. The publication of this decision will also make a public
declaration to uphold standards in social work.
23
Final decision
Case examiners’ final decision
The case examiners concluded on 21 October 2020 that the social worker’s fitness to
practise was likely to be found impaired but that the public interest could be met through
a prompt conclusion, published decision and conditions of practice order, rather than
through a public hearing. They proposed a conditions of practice order with a duration of
one year and on 27 October 2020, the social worker accepted this proposal.
In light of the social worker’s acceptance of the conditions of practice order, the case
examiners have considered again whether there would be a public interest in referring this
matter to a public hearing. They remain of the view that this is unnecessary for the reasons
set out earlier in the decision .
Having been advised of the social worker’s response, the case examiners have again turned
their minds as to whether conditions remain the most appropriate means of disposal for
this case. They have reviewed their decision, paying particular regard to the overarching
objectives of Social Work England, i.e. protection of the public, the maintenance of public
confidence in the social work profession, and the maintenance of proper standards. Having
done so, they remain of the view that an accepted disposal by way of conditions is a fair
and proportionate disposal and is the minimum necessary to protect the public and the
wider public interest.
Their final determination is therefore that that this case should be concluded by way of a
conditions of practice order as an alternative to referral to a substantive hearing, and
they support the implementation of this outcome.
Is there an interim order to be revoked?
No