- About us
- Approved courses
- Concerns & complaints
- SignVideo VRS
12th Feb 2021
|Professional Discipline||Registered Sign Language Interpreter|
|Date Complaint Received||12.02.2021|
|Date Complaint Closed||08.06.2021|
|Origin of Complaint||Registered Sign Language Interpreter|
|Registered or Trainee||Registered|
|Nature of Complaint||
Complainant raised concerns around a number of assignments from 2017 to January 2021. It was alleged that the Registrant during this time attended appointments without knowing the name of whom they were attending for. The Complainant witnessed this for themselves but also received information from a service user that this had occurred. On a number of occasions, the service user in question left assignments when the Registrant attended, as they did not wish to work with male professionals. This has resulted in missed medical appointments. The Complainant did raise the issue directly with the Registrant on a number of occasions, however as the issues persist, felt NRCPD needed to be informed.
|Summary||Investigation conducted into potential breach of Section 3.3, 6.1 and 6.3 of NRCPD's Code of Conduct, witness statements were sought.|
Case Examiners decided based on the evidence provided, that there was not a realistic prospect of finding an impairment of fitness to practice, and that it was not in the public interest to refer the case to a Complaints Committee. The following summary was provided:
The Case Examiners felt that practitioners do rely heavily upon agencies to acquire all the appropriate information necessary and that for a number of reasons, it is not always possible to ascertain further information, nor indeed necessary. Furthermore, the Case Examiners commented that it is not always possible to refer a service user to another practitioner if, through no fault of their own, a practitioner is not aware that it is necessary. In addition, a practitioner cannot be expected to declare a potential conflict of interest to the service user, if they are unaware of a conflict existing
The Case Examiners recommendation was that in their opinion, the Registrant has not undermined public trust and confidence in themselves or the profession.