Simeon E Agbonkhina
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.
1. Failed to meet the competencies required in 3 of the 9 rotations you
2. Struggled to retain knowledge and apply theoretical knowledge to practical
situations and therefore you are unable to recognise abnormalities in that
a) Unable to interpret medical round reports and provide an
opinion/decision on required action.
b) Unable to recognise discrepancies between presumptive
identifications and the results returned by the antibiotic laboratory.
3. Demonstrated an inability to perform tasks in a timely manner, in that you:
i) Failed to meet 24 hour and 48 hour – 5 day targets whilst
working on the special bench.
ii) Failed to participate fully in the BMS Roster/out of core hours
4. The matters set out in paragraphs 1-3 constitute a lack of competence.
5. By reason of your lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.
At the review hearings in 2013 and 2014, there continued to be concerns about protection of the public. It was submitted today on behalf of the HCPC that the Panel should consider whether a Conditions of Practice Order remains necessary. In so determining, the Panel would need to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.
The Registrant submitted that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired but if the Panel took a contrary view, the Panel should consider relaxing the conditions in order for him to obtain employment so as to demonstrate that he would no longer require his practice to be supervised by another practitioner.
The Panel took the advice of the Legal Assessor.
The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. It considered this in the context of criteria as set out in Cohen. The Panel
considered that the Registrant’s lack of competence was remediable and, in this regard, the Panel agreed with previous Panels. The Panel considered that the
Registrant has taken considerable steps to remediate his lack of competence including creating and following a detailed personal development plan. This
demonstrates his improved knowledge of the areas of concern. In addition, the reference from the Chief Biomedical Scientist indicates that he is currently working at a good level. The Registrant informed the Panel that he has been asked to undertake training of new members of staff, which indicates that he is trusted to work to a consistently good standard. However, the nature of the Registrant’s current role is such that he has not been able to demonstrate the ability to translate his academic knowledge into practice in the work environment.
Although the Registrant has demonstrated insight and his ability to work as a Biomedical Scientist to the required standard in the areas of work in which he is
currently engaged, the Panel remains concerned that the constraints of that post have not enabled him to provide evidence of the wider capability required in practice.
Accordingly, there remains a risk of recurrence of the errors which were identified at the Final Hearing that risk is low but it does mean the Registrant’s fitness to practise therefore remains impaired.
Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel considered whether it was necessary to take any further action. Because of the risk, albeit low, of recurrence, the Panel determined that it would be inappropriate to take no further action.
The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order. The Panel noted the following guidance from the Indicative Sanctions Policy:
A caution order may be appropriate sanction for:
- slightly more serious cases, where the lapse is isolated or of a minor nature
- there is a low risk of recurrence,
- the Registrant has shown insight and taken remedial action.
Although the lapse in this case was not isolated or of a minor nature, the Panel is mindful of the fact that the Registrant has had restrictions on his practice since 2011.
He has recently shown that is addressing his deficiencies not only from an academic perspective but also clinically, The Panel is satisfied that he has shown considerable insight into his previous failings.
The Panel therefore concluded that Caution Order would be proportionate. This will enable the Registrant to practise with no restrictions and will enable him to continue to develop his practice in accordance with the standards of his profession. At the same
time, it marks the fact that there are some residual concerns regarding his fitness to practise which the Panel is confident that the Registrant will continue to address.
In the Panel’s view a Caution Order for a period of two years provides sufficient protection to the public in view of the low risk of recurrence which has been identified.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Simeon E Agbonkhina
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|23/11/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Hearing has not yet been held|
|20/11/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Caution|