David A Patterrson
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via firstname.lastname@example.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
During the course of your employment as a Biomedical Scientist for Royal
Liverpool University Hospital between October 2013 and June 2014, you:
1. Signed Haematology BMS Training Records in the name (initials) of
Colleague A without her knowledge and/or consent, namely on records
a. 03 December 2013
b. 05 December 2013
c. 20 February 2014
d. 25 March 2014
e. 27 March 2014
f. 25 May 2014
2. Your actions in 1 above were dishonest.
3. The matters described out in paragraphs 1 - 2 constitute misconduct.
4. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the proceedings, in accordance with rule 3 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 by notice dated 22 April 2015.
2. The Panel next considered whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor to consider the guidance in the HCPC Practice Note entitled Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and followed that advice. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is aware of the hearing and has waived his right to attend. It is therefore in the public interest to proceed with the hearing today.
3. The Registrant is registered in the Biomedical Scientist (BMS) part of the HCPC Register. He was employed as the Laboratory Manager in the Blood Sciences Department at Broadgreen Hospital, Liverpool.
4. He was on medical leave from March to September 2013 and was required to undertake a period of retraining in order to be able to practise safely. He did not complete his retraining. He was asked in June 2014 by the Laboratory Directorate Manager to submit proof of retraining, in the form of a completed departmental training record. The Registrant replied by submitting a document onto which he had entered the initials of Colleague A. This had been completed without her knowledge or consent, indicating wrongly that he had been found to be competent by her.
5. Due to the serious nature of this matter, the Registrant was suspended from duty on 20 June 2014.The incident was investigated and a Disciplinary Panel decided (on 22 August 2014) that the allegations of falsification or inaccurate statements in official documents and falsification of training documents related to fitness to practise and professional registration, were found proved and to amount to gross misconduct. The Registrant received a final written warning.
6. The Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, according to the HCPC. This has been accepted by the Registrant, following a finding by an Investigating Committee of the HCPC that there is a case to answer. An HCPC Registrant, who wishes to cease practice but has an outstanding allegation in relation to his fitness to practise, may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA) with the HCPC.
7. In this case a VRA has been signed by both parties, dated 12 May 2015.
8. The HCPC submits this is a proportionate and pragmatic way to dispose of the case in the public interest.
9. The Registrant states that he fully retired from practice as a BMS on 31 October 2014 and has no plans to return to work. He fully admits the above allegation and therefore requests that he be allowed to remove himself from the HCPC Register.
10. These are serious matters because the Registrant was in a senior position and failed to undertake the necessary retraining to ensure his safe return to practice. However there is no reason that the public interest requires this case to proceed to a final hearing; because the effect of the VRA is the same as a sanction to strike off the Registrant. Therefore the HCPC submits the public will be adequately protected if the Registrant is permitted to resign from the Register and this is not a case in which a public hearing is required to maintain public confidence in the regulatory process or the profession. The Registrant has expressed his regret for failing to realise the seriousness of his actions, and also provided mitigation. The Panel accepts he has no intention of returning to work as a BMS.
11. The Panel is satisfied that a voluntary removal is consistent with the protection of the public and would not be detrimental to the wider public interest; taking into account that the Registrant will be removed from the HCPC register in the same way as if a striking off order had been made against him.
12. The Panel therefore consents to the HCPC discontinuing the above proceedings against the Registrant by means of a VRA because it is appropriate to do so. He will be removed from the HCPC register as if a striking off order had been made against him under Article 29 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.
History of Hearings for David A Patterrson
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|29/05/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Voluntary Removal agreed|