Professional Conduct Review Committee
Objective of the Professional Complaints Review Committee
The objective of the Professional Complaints Review Committee (“PCRC”) is to carry out its functions in accordance with the requirements of the maintaining of professional standard by registered Practitioners, including the handling of complaints raised by service users, member of the public or other Practitioners.
The PCRC reports into The Accredited Practitioner Register Advisory Board.
The PCRC will consist of no less than three people, one of whom is a senior member of the Athena Herd Foundation team, and at least one of whom will be a lay person. Where possible objective appropriate expertise will be engaged.
The PCRC may convene by meeting in person and/or by remote means.
The quorum for the PCRC will be three members.
Functions of the Committee and the Proceedings test
The primary functions of the PCRC are as follows:
- Determining whether the professional standards are being complied with when requested to do so by the Registrar.
- Seeking further information or clarification from either party to a complaint as it considers appropriate in accordance with the obligation to objectively assess.
- Deciding whether to impose an interim suspension on a Practitioner
- Deciding whether the conditions of a “proceedings test” are met or whether a complaint should be dismissed, the tests being:
- the facts alleged would (if proven) amount to a failure to meet professional standards; and
- there is a realistic prospect that facts justifying a finding of such a failure will be proved; and
- that it is in the public interest for the complaint to be dealt with by way of the Malpractice and Maladministration Policy
- Where it finds that the proceedings test is met, set out the formal allegations against the Practitioner, determining whether allegations are allegations of professional misconduct and poor practice
- Reviewing an interim suspension and lift the suspension following review, if appropriate.
- Considering and determining whether a complaint should be disposed of by means of consensual disposal.
- Deciding upon whether the complaint can be dealt with as a practice review and assign an appropriately experienced practitioner to carry it out.
- Deciding upon, and recommending sanctions on the Practitioner as part of a consensual disposal agreement or based upon the outcome of a practice review.
- Deciding to proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing and the scheduling, organisation and hearing thereof.
- To submit all decisions and outcomes, as well as any suggestions for sanctions to be applied, to the Advisory Board
Applying the proceedings test
In applying the proceedings test (outlined above) the PCRC will first consider the facts alleged and consider whether those facts if proved would amount to a failure to meet the professional standards. If the PCRC decides that they would not, the proceedings test is not met. It will also consider whether there is a realistic prospect that facts justifying a finding of such a failure will be proved.
The PCRC should take into account the Practitioner’s explanations and representations. A realistic prospect of a finding of misconduct means that it is more likely than not to make a finding of a failure to meet the professional standards against the Practitioner.
The onus is on the Complainant to prove their case and not on the Practitioner complained against to disprove the case. It is not the role of the PCRC to resolve substantial conflicts in the available evidence such as deciding which of a number of differing versions of events is the correct one.
The PCRC must consider whether the complaint should be dealt with by way of the disciplinary Hearing or practice review, taking account of the wider public interest including the protection of the public and the need to maintain public confidence in the counselling professions.
The PCRC should only continue allegations that meet the proceedings test.
The PCRC will consider each case on its individual facts and discuss any issues that are raised and make decisions on a majority basis. In doing so the PCRC needs to consider objectively the facts and representations in light of the ethical codes/ethical frameworks in effect during the period/s of membership of the Practitioner at the time/s when the alleged breaches alleged took place.
All decisions will signed by a designated member of the PCRC and reported to the Advisory Board for ratification and signed off by the Athena Herd Foundation Executive Committee.
All decisions recommended by the PCRC will align to the conditions will align to the conditions of the Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and any subsequent recommended actions in-line with the Sanctions Policy.
Where appropriate, decisions will be published in accordance with the Register’s Professional Conduct Publication Policy on the Professional Conduct Notices page.
Disciplinary hearings are formal hearings. They are generally held in private unless the PCRC decides this is not in the public interest.
The case is between the Register and the member, a representative of the Register will present the complaint. The complainant is invited to attend as a witness and may be asked to give details of the complaint or answer questions.
The member may be accompanied by a representative who may support or speak on their behalf. Both parties may call witnesses, if agreed beforehand.
Both parties will be advised by email at least two weeks in advance of such hearings, whether they are invited to attend or not. Attendance is not an obligation. Where parties choose not to attend the meeting will continue in their absence and decisions reached on information available.
Decisions will be reached in accordance with “Decision Making” outline above and the outcomes will then be recommended to the Advisory Board for review and approval.
Accepting complaints out of time
When considering whether or not to accept a complaint out of time subject to written explanation,. We must receive complaints within one month of the event you’re complaining about, unless there are good reasons why it has taken longer.
The PCRC will consider the written explanation provided and decide as a preliminary issue, whether or not the time period for submitting the complaint should be extended.
What constitutes a ‘good and sufficient’ reason shall be solely at the discretion of the PCRC which may take advice from any person as it deems appropriate.
All written explanations will form part of the complaint submission and will be available to the Practitioner concerned.
Review and Standardisation
Return to the Register’s home page.
|1||GG||Initial Draft||November 2022|
|2||GG||Update to strengthen alignment to related policies and procedures||February 2023|