Three no shows in a row:

Here's another case reported on today's press releases. Another registrant who didn't turn up, which might suggest that the registrant has no confidence in being given a fair hearing.

Points of interest

1. this is a manager that is being judged, which raises a series of questions about the difference between a manager and a practitioner, and so who is the judge of the proficiency.
2. Given the managerial function, this raises the question of the organisational context that gives the scene its local meaning.
3. Who raised the complaint - what attempts were made to resolve this at the local level, why did they fail.

In all these cases it is important to ask 'what is the evidence' used by HPC. It would be wrong to conclude that they had carried out objective in depth research. Often cases are launched on hearsay. All cases begin with the assumption that the professional is probably guilty. They are all are investigated at a distance, with paperwork as the main method. Committees are the primary vehicle, followed by solicitor who prepares the allegation (that is to say, the solicitor's research is not objective, but is conducted in order to win).

Final point, much is made of the phrase 'balance of probabilities' which borrows the power of statistics. No statistics are used, however, and the phrase is simply a metaphor.

Quoted from HPC website:"Mismanagement results in human error and lack of concentration in cellular pathology unit. Biomedical scientist, Mr x has been suspended from the HPC Register for misconduct after a HPC Conduct and Competence Committee found his current fitness to practise impaired whilst working at the Y Hospitals NHS Trust.

The panel heard how Mr X’s lack of competence as a senior staff member had resulted in over 600 products of conception (POC) that were not disposed of, swapped breast biopsies and a wrongly prepared rectal tissue sample.

The Panel also heard that the registrant failed to accept ownership and accountability for the incidents, and that he had not taken any remedial steps to address the short comings.

Panel Chair, Raymond Pattison, commented:“The registrant knowingly allowed an inordinate and substantial amount of POCs to accumulate”

“The registrants failure, in his managerial position, to exercise sound judgment, particularly to the sensitive issue of POC disposals constitutes a serious lapse from the standards to be expected of a health professional of his seniority.

”The panel decided the most appropriate action was to suspend Mr X from the Register for a period of one year with immediate effect.

Mr X was neither present nor represented at the hearing