Ahmed Kabir Suleiman

Profession: Radiographer

Registration Number: RA47177

Interim Order: Imposed on 06 Nov 2015

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 03/11/2015 End: 17:00 06/11/2015

Location: Health and Care Professions Council, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Conditions of Practice

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 tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

Allegations (as amended at final hearing ):

During the course of your employment as a Radiographer with Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust

1. On 4 November 2013 you:
a. conducted a bilateral x-ray of Patient A’s knees when only a unilateral x-ray was required;
b. altered Patient A’s x-ray to present it as if it was a unilateral image.

2. Your actions in paragraph 1b were for the purpose of concealing your actions in paragraph 1a.

3. On 23 November 2013 you x-rayed 9 patients using the wrong exposure levels

4. In respect of 9 of the x-rays referred to in paragraph 3, you were aware that you were using the wrong exposure levels.

5. As a result of your actions at paragraphs 1 and 3 you exposed your patients to unnecessarily high levels of radiation.

6. On 28 February 2014 you carried out an incorrect examination in that you x-rayed the wrong knee for Patient B.

7. Your actions at paragraph 2 were dishonest.

8. The matters described in paragraphs 1(a), 3, 5 and 6 constitute lack of competence and/or misconduct.

9. Your actions at paragraph 1(b), 2, 4 and 7 constitute misconduct.

10. By reason of that misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is Impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters:

1. Ms Lister applied for the allegation to be amended to the wording set out in the notice to Mr Suleiman dated 28 April 2015 so that the allegation properly reflected the evidence. She also applied for further amendments, namely by deleting “you” at the end of the stem to paragraph 1, adding reference to paragraph 5 in paragraph 8, and by amending the reference to paragraph 6 in paragraph 8 to refer to paragraph 7. Mr Oyegoke did not object to any of the proposed amendments.

2. After receiving legal advice from the Legal Assessor that amendments to the allegation could be made at the discretion of the Panel if there was not injustice to the registrant, the Panel determined to permit all of the amendments sought by Ms Lister. 

Background:

3. Mr Suleiman commenced employment as a Band 5 Radiographer at the Liverpool Heart and Chest NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) in May 2006. He was based in the General Radiology Department. He was responsible for in-patients and outpatients who required plain film radiology.  His role included performing chest, abdominal, pelvis, and upper and lower limb x-rays. Mr Suleiman was subject to the Trust’s Capability Process from 2011. He was monitored throughout this time by JR, Radiology Manager. The Capability Stage Two process was completed on 23 March 2012 when Mr Suleiman had met all of his objectives. Following further concerns, a First Formal Review was held on 16 August 2012, and on 29 January 2013, the Capability Stage Two process concluded and Mr Suleiman re-commenced full participation in the Band 5 rota.

4. Incidents then occurred on 04 November 2013 and 23 November 2013 (these are the basis of particulars 1 – 5 and 7 of the allegation). Mr Suleiman was placed on supervised practice from 16 December 2013 onwards. Another incident (the basis for particular 6 of the allegation) then occurred on 28 February 2014.

Admissions

5. Mr Oyegoke informed the Panel that Mr Suleiman admitted pararagraphs 1, 3 4, 5 and 6 of the allegation, but denied paragraphs 2 and 7 of the allegation.
HCPC Evidence

6. JR, Radiololgy Manager at the Trust gave oral evidence to the Panel. She pointed to the Trust guidance that x-ray doses should be given using the “ALARA” (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, as set out in the Local Rules for Radiation Safety and the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IRMER) 2000.  She identified a form that Mr Suleiman had signed to confirm he had read and understood the Local Rules. JR also told the Panel about Mr Suleiman’s reflective work on reducing x-ray doses during the Trust’s Capability Stage One procedures, and explained the support given to Mr Suleiman in the subsequent Stages which led to Mr Suleiman’s return to rota work from 29 January 2013.

7. With regard to the incident on 04 November 2013, JR had been told about the cropping of the radiograph image, but that, as far as she recalled, Mr Suleiman did not speak to her about it. She told the Panel that she considered that Mr Suleiman should have left both knee images on the PACS as recommended by his colleague, AS. Knowing him, she thinks that his motive was probably to cover up his mistake, rather than seeking to deceive anyone. JR also told the Panel about her questioning Mr Suleiman on 16 December 2013 about his over-exposing of nine patients on 23 November 2013. Mr Suleiman had first claimed that the mobile machine was faulty, but then he admitted that he had set the machine manually to 1.7 from 0.7 in order to give a higher exposure because he felt it was justified.

8. DE, Superintendent Radiographer General X-ray/Education Specialist, at the Trust gave oral evidence to the Panel. She told the Panel that the incident of 04 November 2013 was reported to her by AS and that she had spoken to Mr Suleiman about this on 06 November 2013. He had apologised for the error but “did not appear to understand that cropping the image to remove the additional X-ray was not appropriate”. Although she had no personal knowledge of the incident on 23 November 2013, she told the Panel that the use of the ALARA principle is the over-arching principle for radiographers. This principle is detailed in both the Trust’s Local Rules for Radiation Safety and in the Ionising (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IRMER) 2000. DE also stated that Mr Suleiman came to speak to her on 28 February 2014 to tell her that he had X-rayed Patient B’s left knee as opposed to the right knee. She pointed to the referral form in the hearing bundle which originally demonstrated that a left knee X-ray was required, and indicated that this had been crossed out and replaced with a handwritten request that the right knee be X-rayed.

9. AS, at the time Band 5 General Radiographer at the Trust, gave oral evidence to the Panel about the events of 4 November 2013.  She was supervising Mr Suleiman when Mr Suleiman performed the first X-ray on both of Patient A’s knees, taking the “AP” or anteroposterior view. She states that when reviewing the image, Mr Suleiman pointed out that he was going to have to repeat the x-ray, because the anatomical marker was obscuring the left knee. Her evidence is that he then x-rayed both knees again, “rather than the left knee which had been obscured”.

10. AS stated that she told Mr Suleiman that he should only have X-rayed the knee that had been obscured, to reduce the radiation dose given to the patient. She stated that Mr Suleiman went on to move the patient to take lateral view (taken from the side) X-rays, and performed the left lateral view twice. She then discovered that the X-ray request only required the right knee to be X-rayed (known as a unilateral examination), as follows:
               “XR Knee Rt”
              “Right patellofemoral replacement 3/12.  Progress views please” 

11. AS stated that the patient therefore had been over-exposed to radiation as a result of this incident. AS said that after the patient had left, she told Mr Suleiman that he should report his error and that as the image had been taken, he should leave it on the records. She stated that he told her he “could not be seen to be making mistakes, because management were watching him”. She stated that Mr Suleiman told her “he did not want the managers to find out about the error and that he would remove the left knee from the image by cropping it from the image”. She goes on to state that Mr Suleiman then retrieved the image of the two knees which had been taken, and used the software to crop the left knee from the image. She checked PACS a short time later and saw that Mr Suleiman had updated the system so that only the image of the right knee was saved to the computer system under the patient records.

12. The contents of the signed written witness statements of KK, LB and AE had been agreed by Mr Oyegoke on behalf of Mr Suleiman and were therefore presented to the Panel as agreed statements.

13. KK, former Band 5 Diagnostic Radiographer at the Trust, was working with Mr Suleiman on 23 November 2013. Mr Suleiman was working on a mobile X-ray machine (also known as a “DRX” machine).  As the automated Computerised Radiology Information System (“CRIS”) was not working on that day, Mr Suleiman had to manually enter the patient data and details onto the machine and then select the appropriate examination to be undertaken (this then selected the relevant radiation levels required). The general set radiation for chest X-rays for these machines is 125kVp (kilovoltage peak) and 0.7mAs (milliampere second). She stated that whilst the kVp would remain the same, the mAs would vary depending on the patient’s size (decreasing the mAs if the patient was smaller than average, and increasing it if the patient was larger than average). She stated that 0.7 was, however, the standard mAs used for most patients having mobile chest x-rays and that Mr Suleiman would have needed to adjust the radiation level as required, prior to each patient’s x-ray, from the standard 125/0.7.

14. LB, Band 5 Diagnostic Radiographer, was in X-ray room 3 on 28 February 2014 and Mr Suleiman was working with DE in room 4. She states that at one stage before lunch, she worked with Mr Suleiman in room 4 whilst DE was dealing with a patient query.  She states that although she and Mr Suleiman were provided with the request form for Patient B which stated that a left knee X-ray was required, the patient confirmed to her, as indicated in the clinical notes, that in fact the X-ray was needed on the right knee, so she then crossed out the reference to “left” knee on the form and replaced this with “right”. Mr Suleiman saw her amending the form in this way. There was then a discussion with Mr Suleiman about changing the knee on CRIS, culminating in LB asking the receptionist to change the left knee to the right knee on the system, whilst Mr Suleiman was sitting next to her; and Mr Suleiman refreshed the system himself to check that CRIS had been updated.

15. DE states that when he came back to the X-ray room, LB explained the situation to him about the knee in the presence of Mr Suleiman, who “heard the entire conversation”. He also states that although LB had checked the patient details and the body part which was being X-rayed, it was expected that Mr Suleiman would have asked Patient B to confirm the correct knee before he then went on to X-ray it. DE discussed the matter with Mr Suleiman on the same day and prepared a statement which Mr Suleiman then signed.  In the discussion and in the statement, Mr Suleiman said that he did not know why he had X-rayed the left knee, and indicated that he had not seen the amended form.

16. Mr Suleiman presented a written witness statement dated 04 November 2015 and gave oral evidence. He told the Panel that his cropping of the image on 04 November 2013 was in order to present his work in a neat manner and not to confuse the referring doctor. He had no intention of concealing his error from either his colleagues or Manager; the original image would always be available on the unit system, although not on PACS (Patient Archive Computer System). Further, his colleague who was working directly with him was fully aware of what he had done. He had declined to follow her suggestion of retaking only the unilateral knee that was requested because he thought that would expose the patient to unnecessary radiation. He said that he had reported what had happened to both DE and JR that day, and is surprised that neither recalled that. With regard to the allegation of dishonesty, he said that he was an honest person and this was recognised by every single member of the team at the Trust.

17. With regard to the over-exposure of the nine patients on 23 November 2013, Mr Suleiman accepted this was his error, and he recognises that he ought to have sought the opinion of a colleague or Manager through the switch board when the first image burnt out. He also recognises that he could have opted for another mobile X-ray machine.

18. Mr Suleiman also apologised for the incident of over-exposure of the patient on 28 February 2014 and said that this would have been avoided if he had engaged more with the patient and properly checked the request form, as he should have done.

19. Mr Suleiman took the Panel to his reflective learning document, certificates of training, learning activity forms, and the references and testimonials he had provided. He said such incidents will not happen again as he now recognised that he must involve and seek the views of his colleagues at all times, and not make decisions on his own. Mr Suleiman also explained to the Panel that he loves being a Radiographer, he recognises the continuous learning process involved and said that he has endeavoured to update himself through all the changes since he initially qualified in 1987. He said that mistakes will happen in practice and that errors should be treated as learning opportunities rather than be taken up as disciplinary matters.

 Decision on facts:

20. Ms Lister submitted that the Panel should take Mr Suleiman’s admissions into account when considering whether the evidence presented by the HCPC proved paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the allegation. She submitted that the HCPC’s evidence and the evidence of Mr Suleiman was sufficient for the Panel to find paragraphs 2 and 7 proved on the balance of probabilities.

21. Mr Oyegoke submitted that the Panel should not find paragraphs 2 and 7 of the allegation proved. Mr Suleiman did not crop the image for the purpose of concealing the fact that he had conducted a bilateral X-ray of Patient A’s knees as alleged, but simply to produce his work in a neat way. Mr Suleiman did not act dishonestly and in that regard the Panel should note, he submitted, that none of the three Trust radiographers who gave evidence suggested that they would regard his action as amounting to acting dishonestly.

22. The Panel carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of Ms Lister and Mr Oyegoke. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel recognised that the burden of proof rests at all times is on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely, on the balance of probability. The Panel considered each paragraph and sub-paragraph of the allegation separately.

23. In respect of the allegation of dishonesty, the Panel accepted that the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 7 were very serious allegations and cogent evidence is required to prove them. Mr Suleiman is a man of good character and the Panel would take that into account in considering both his propensity to act as alleged, and his credibility when giving his evidence. Further, the Panel would apply the two-stage test for proof of dishonesty alleged in paragraph 7. First, it determined whether the conduct in paragraph 2 of the allegation, if proved, would be considered as dishonest by the standards of ordinary and honest radiographers. If not, then that would be an end to the matter, but if it would be considered dishonest, the Panel would need to proceed to the second stage, and determine whether Mr Suleiman realised at the time that his conduct would be regarded as dishonest by those standards.

24. The Panel considered that the witnesses called by the HCPC - JR, DE and AS were all credible and essentially reliable witnesses who gave their evidence in a balanced way. Mr Suleiman’s evidence was inconsistent at times and he also appeared to be confused about what had happened between the incidents, but the Panel did not believe that he was trying to mislead the Panel.

Paragraph 1(a) – found proved

25. The direct evidence of AS, supported by her contemporaneous note, and of Mr Suleiman himself, established on the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct had occurred.

Paragraph 1(b) – found proved

26. DE and AS had both confirmed that the PACS image looked as if it was a unilateral image. Mr Suleiman’s own evidence and admission established on the balance of probabilities that the alleged alteration had occurred.

Paragraph 2 – found not proved

27. AS’s evidence was that Mr Suleiman had informed her about what he was doing and that she had advised him not to crop the image to put on PACS and to report to his manager that he had mistakenly X-rayed both knees. Mr Suleiman had also told the Panel that he believed the full bilateral image would remain on the unit system to be viewed and DE confirmed that the original bilateral image would remain on that system.

28. The Panel considered that this paragraph, fairly interpreted, alleged that Mr Suleiman altered the image for the purpose of concealing his mistake of X-raying both knees from everyone. That was not proved on AS’s evidence. She was informally supervising him and Mr Suleiman told her at the time what he was intending to do by way of alteration to the image. The Panel accepted the evidence of AS that Mr Suleiman told her he was going to crop the image so that his managers would not know that he had X-rayed both knees. However, the fact that he told her means that his purpose could not have been to conceal the alteration of the image from everyone.

Paragraph 3 – found proved

29. Mr Suleiman’s own evidence and admission, and the evidence of KK about her interrogation of the machine, established on the balance of probabilities the alleged over-exposure of nine patients had occurred.

Paragraph 4 – found proved

30. Mr Suleiman’s own evidence and admission established on the balance of probabilities that that he was aware that he was using the wrong exposure levels on the mobile machine in breach of the Trust’s policies on exposure levels and the ALARA principle.

Paragraph 5 – found proved

31. Mr Suleiman’s own evidence and admission, together with the evidence of JR, DE and KK, established on the balance of probabilities that the patients on 4 and 23 November 2013 had been exposed to unnecessarily high levels of radiation.

Paragraph 6 – found proved

32. Mr Suleiman’s own evidence and admission, together with the evidence of LB and AE, established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Suleiman had x-rayed the wrong knee for Patient B.

Paragraph 7 – found not proved

33. This allegation fell away because paragraph 2 had been found not proved.

Decision on grounds:

34. Ms Lister submitted that the ground of lack of competence required a fair sample of the registrant’s work and that there was sufficient evidence of that in this case. Ms Lister submitted that the allegations, if proven, could be considered as not meeting the requirements of paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 14 of the HCPC’s published “Standards of Proficiency: Radiographers” 2013. With regards to the alleged misconduct, Mr Suleiman’s actions involved, she submitted, breaches of paragraphs 1, 7, 10 and 13 of the HCPC’s published “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” 2012.

35. Mr Oyegoke submitted that it was a matter for the professional judgement of the Panel whether the proven facts amounted to misconduct and/or lack of competence.

36. The Panel carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of Ms Lister and Mr Oyegoke. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and bore in mind that it was for the Panel alone, exercising its own professional judgement, to determine whether either or both the grounds of lack of competence and/or misconduct were made out in this case. The Panel understood that to constitute misconduct affecting Mr Suleiman’s fitness to practise, the misconduct, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, had to be serious.

37. The Panel considered whether any of the proven facts alleged in paragraph 8 of the allegation fell within the ground of lack of competence and/or misconduct. The Panel concluded that the proven facts in paragraph 1(a) and 6 of the allegation amounted to lack of competence, but not misconduct as they were not serious breaches of the required standards. To X-ray two knees when the request form specified one knee, and to X-ray the wrong knee, were breaches of the following applicable standards – paragraphs 4.1 and 14.1 of the HCPC’s “Standards of Proficiency: Radiographers” 2013, and paragraph 7 of “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” 2012.

38. With respect to paragraphs 3 and 5 of the allegation, the first incident concerned nine patients on one day and the second covered both November 2013 incidents. They involved breaches of the basic ALARA principle and of the Trust’s policies, both of which were known to Mr Suleiman, and therefore Mr Suleiman did not act in the best interests of these ten patients in breach of paragraph 1 of “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” 2012. The Panel concluded that such breaches were serious and therefore amounted to the ground of misconduct.

39. The Panel next considered whether any of the proven facts alleged in paragraph 9 of the allegation fell within the ground of misconduct. The Panel concluded that the proven fact in paragraph 1(b) relating to the one incident on 04 November 2013 amounted to a breach of paragraph 10 of “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” 2012. The Panel considered this breach to be sufficiently serious, because Mr Suleiman repeatedly disregarded the advice of his informal supervisor, AS, and further, his line manager, DE, had told the Panel that she considered his actions to be inappropriate.

40. With regard to paragraph 4 of the allegation, Mr Suleiman knew that he was over-exposing the nine patients against the ALARA principle and the Trust’s policies, so this was not negligence but a series of deliberate actions by Mr Suleiman. He will have known that the risk of harm was greater than normal, because these were all intensive care patients who, in the past and in the future, will have undergone many X-rays and therefore have greater cumulative radiation doses. This was accordingly a serious breach by Mr Suleiman of his duty to act in the best interests of service users set out in paragraph 1 of “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” 2012. 

Decision on impairment:

41. Ms Lister submitted that it was a matter for the professional judgement of the Panel as to whether Mr Suleiman’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. She submitted that the Panel should take account of the fact that Mr Suleiman had been the subject of competency procedures at the Trust shortly before these incidents. This called into question his ability to remediate effectively the clinical deficiencies found in this case which could put service users at risk if there was repetition of his actions. She also submitted that the Panel should bear in mind the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.

42. Mr Oyegoke submitted that the Panel need not find Mr Suleiman’s fitness to practise currently impaired. Mr Suleiman had admitted most of the allegations and had attended many courses addressing the professional deficiencies. He had reflected greatly upon those deficiencies so that the concerns were now remediated and there was little risk of repetition. Mr Oyegoke also drew the Panel’s attention to the many references provided and that, to the extent that Mr Suleiman has been able to work over the past 18 months, there had been no repetition.

43. The Panel carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions of Ms Lister and Mr Oyegoke. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPC’s Practice Note “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” July 2013.

44. Looking at the personal component first, the Panel considered that Mr Suleiman is essentially a man who is proud to be a radiographer. The many references he produced reflect this and his commitment to his chosen profession. The Panel bore in mind that Mr Suleiman has practised for over 25 years without previously having to appear before his regulator, but his practice in recent times has not be free from concerns as is evident from the Trust implementing its Capability and Performance procedures prior to these incidents. However, it was evident to the Panel from seeing him give evidence, that his thought processes can become confused, which might well explain these incidents. His further training and efforts to remediate these identified shortcomings in his practice, whilst relevant, do not sufficiently satisfy the Panel that there is, at present, no real risk of repetition.

45. Turning to what is termed the public component in the Practice Note, the Panel has taken into account that, overall, these incidents occurred on three different dates and concerned a total of eleven service users who did not receive the care that they were entitled to receive from a registered radiographer. Mr Suleiman’s proven lack of competence and misconduct could therefore undermine the public’s confidence in the profession and the Panel has a duty to protect this by declaring and upholding the required standards of professional conduct and proficiency.

46. For these reasons, the Panel has determined that Mr Suleiman’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on sanction:

47. Ms Lister submitted that whether to impose a sanction, and, if so, what sanction, was a matter for the Panel alone applying the HCPC’s “Indicative Sanctions Policy” September 2015 (“ISP”). Any sanction should accordingly be the minimum necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest.

48. Mr Oyegoke submitted that the Panel, pursuant to the principle of proportionality, should only impose the minimum sanction appropriate to protect the public and the wider public interest. Proportionality also required the balancing of the public interest and Mr Suleiman’s own interests. Any restriction was likely to affect his ability to obtain work with the detrimental financial implications to Mr Suleiman and his ability to support his family. He reminded the Panel of Mr Suleiman’s engagement with the HCPC’s regulatory process, his admissions in respect of the allegation, his efforts to remediate his failings, and of the supportive references. If a Conditions of Practice Order was considered by the Panel he reminded the Panel that such conditions needed to be workable. To go further, though, and impose a Suspension Order would, he submitted, be disproportionate.

49. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and applied the Indicative Sanctions Policy (ISP), including the application of the principle of proportionality after balancing the interests of the public and the interests of Mr Suleiman.

50. The Panel first considered what aggravating features were present in this case. The Panel considered there to be several. Mr Suleiman’s lack of competence and misconduct arose after he had been the subject of support from his employing trust under its Capability and Performance procedures. The misconduct arose from Mr Suleiman’s deliberate decisions not to follow advice in one case, and not to comply with the ALARA principle and Trust policies on another. Further, these incidents occurred on three separate occasions and involved Mr Suleiman using unnecessarily high doses of x-ray radiation contrary to a fundamental principle of radiography.

51. The Panel took into account the following mitigating factors. Mr Suleiman had engaged in the regulatory process and actively undertaken courses relevant to the remedying of his identified deficiencies and had undertaken significant reflection. He had demonstrated sufficient insight into those deficiencies and the possible impact of his actions upon service users’ safety and the wider public interest. Mr Suleiman had also demonstrated genuine remorse and apologised to the Panel for his actions. Although Mr Oyegoke had placed great weight on the references, the Panel considered that of the seven, only two addressed Mr Suleiman’s general competency, and neither appeared to be up to date with reference to his current competence.

52. Having taken those matters into account the Panel first considered whether it would be appropriate and sufficient to take no further action. The Panel rejected this because of the seriousness of the deficiencies which included misconduct. In considering a Caution Order, the Panel had identified a risk of repetition of the misconduct which could not be addressed by returning Mr Suleiman to unrestricted practise. Nor would a Caution Order sufficiently uphold standards or maintain confidence in the profession of radiography. The Panel therefore rejected a Caution Order.

53. The Panel went on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. It considered that all the factors set out in paragraph 25 of the ISP were present:
• the issues which the conditions seek to address are capable of correction;
• there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so;
• appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the registrant can be expected to comply with them; and
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether those conditions have or are being met.

54. The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was the realistic and appropriate remedy in accordance with paragraph 28 of ISP and would adequately protect service users and the wider public interest. Although the lack of competence and misconduct in this case arose after a considerable period of support from his previous trust, the Panel took into account Mr Suleiman’s subsequent targeted learning and reflection. Accordingly, the Panel concluded a Conditions of Practice order for a period of 18 months would provide Mr Suleiman with the opportunity to demonstrate he is safe to resume practise without restriction, whilst protecting the public.

55. The engagement and insight of Mr Suleiman, and the adequacy of a Conditions of Practice Order, meant that a Suspension Order would be a disproportionate sanction.

 

Order

56. The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that for the period of 18 months the registration of Ahmed Kabir Suleiman is subject to the following Conditions of Practice

1. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a registered radiographer who is present in your department (“workplace supervisor”), and supply details of your workplace supervisor to the HCPC within 7 days of your commencing any employment as a registered radiographer, including locum and agency posts. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

2. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any competency procedures started by your employer or any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

3. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and

C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

4. At least 28 days prior to any review of this Order you must provide to the HCPC report(s) from your workplace supervisor(s) regarding your performance.

5. You must maintain a reflective practice profile detailing every occasion when you have (a) undertaken any incorrect procedure or (b) exposed a service user to inappropriate levels of radiation and must provide a copy of that profile to the HCPC 28 days prior to any review of this Order or confirm that there have been no such occasions.

Notes

This order will be reviewed before its expiry on 06 June 2017.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Ahmed Kabir Suleiman

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
03/11/2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice