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

Telling tales to the HPC - another failure to take responsibility locally.

And, here's another.
Points of note: a senior position, not simply that of practitioner - suggests that an appointments panel thought she was competent for the job.
Would seem to be a matter better dealt with by someone with a bit of life in them at a local level, rather than reported to an anonymous committee in some central office elsewhere.
The phone calls and internet seem very petty misdemeanours, and not obviously harmful to patients. Again, something that should be dealt with at a local level. Yet she was struck off! I'm not condoning slovenly work in the NHS, but trying to keep a perpsective, and to remember that once in many lifetimes, love can make a fool of even the best of us.
What about this woman's actual work - the thing that she does with a patient, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever. Odd.


quoted from HPC web:
Occupational therapist, Ms X has been struck off from the HPC Register for personal misconduct and failing to carry out adequate clinical occupational therapy input to patient care whilst working at the Y Primary Care Trust.

A panel of the HPC Conduct and Competence Committee heard how Ms X had failed to provide regular supervision and appraisals to the members of staff for whom she was responsible, failed to correctly assess patients and failed to organise cover for holiday and sickness leave.

The Panel also heard that Ms X had made personal calls to the value of £32 on her work telephone, used the Trust’s internet resources during working hours to contact dating agencies, took colleagues shopping during work hours and made excessive reference to personal issues in discussions with colleagues.“Ms X must have known that her failings were likely to place patients’ welfare at risk and that these were not proper uses of the Trust’s resources.”

The panel decided the most appropriate action was to strike Ms X from the Register with immediate effect.Ms X was neither present nor represented at the hearing.

Management vs HPC Police

What ever has happened to the staff of the NHS that they can't handle tensions at work? And why has note keeping become fetishised in this way?

Below, taken from today's HPC website, is someone who is described as experienced, yet is suspended for not filling in her notes. From the report here, it seems that there was a bit of a fight between colleagues at work. Everything is ok with the patients, no problems emerge from there, but when this woman goes on holiday, her colleagues appear to snitch on her! What is going on here? I wonder whether a new compturised system is getting in the way - something that assumes work should be done differently from the way it has been done throughout this woman's experience.

And as for the phrase 'I probably made it up' - what on earth is that supposed to refer to? the HPC are notorious for thinking that their registrants might fib (ref their advertising campaign which portrayed professionals as liars), and this quote is so out of context that it is meaningless.

quoted from HPC web:

Physiotherapist, Ms X, has been suspended from the HPC Register for failing to keep accurate patient records whilst employed by Y District Primary Care Trust.

A panel of the HPC Conduct and Competence Committee heard that whilst Ms X was on leave her colleagues were alerted to cases where she had failed to keep accurate records and failed to create action plans for appropriate treatment of patients.

Ms X was an experienced physiotherapist and had been counselled previously in relation to her inadequate record keeping. The Panel heard that when Ms X was confronted about the incidents she admitted ‘she had probably made it up.’

Panel Chair, Mr Gordon Sutehall, commented:

“We are satisfied that there were deficiencies in the registrant’s practice to record keeping and despite supervision and training the registrant did not consistently meet the required standard of record keeping”

“The allegation involves an element of dishonesty and is therefore a serious one.”

The panel decided the most appropriate action was to suspend Ms X from the Register for a period of six months with immediate effect.