Miss Janelyn Manong
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.
(As amended at the hearing):
The Health and Care Professions Council has made the following allegation against the Registrant:
1. On 5 November 2013 requested blood tests for yourself:
a. Using a false name in order to do so; and/or
b. using a hospital number in order to do so which;
i. was not allocated to you; and/or
ii. was already allocated to another patient, resulting in this patient’s records being inaccurate.
2. On 15 November 2013 requested blood tests on yourself by adding extra tests onto your General Practitioner’s request.
3. On 18 November 2013 requested blood tests on yourself
a. Using false name in order to do so; and/or
b. Using a hospital number in order to do so which;
i. Was not allocated to you; and/or
ii. Was already allocated to another patient, resulting in this patient’s records being inaccurate.
4. Your actions described in paragraphs 1-3 were dishonest.
5. Your actions described in paragraphs 1-4 constituted misconduct.
6. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. At the outset of these proceedings Mr Doyle outlined the background to the case and referred to a number of documents in the bundle.
2. The Registrant is employed by Viapath as a Band 6 out-of-hours Biomedical Scientist based at King’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; she has been in this position since 8 January 2010. Her role includes providing a Haematology Service which involves analysing and reporting on patients’ blood samples. As a Band 6 Biomedical Scientist in the Blood Science Laboratory the Registrant is responsible for delivering a service to patients, outpatients, and GP practitioners.
3. On 18 November 2013, SH, Pathology IT, received an automatic notification of a discrepancy on the Patient Information Management System and the laboratory system, WinPath. The notification indicated a hospital number which is unique, had been used for two patients. The matter was drawn to the Registrant’s attention and she admitted that the results were her personal test results.
4. On 15 November 2013 tests were requested by the Registrant’s GP in the Registrant’s correct name and under her hospital number. However, later the same day tests were added on to this request by the Registrant without her GP’s authority.
5. Further tests were also requested on the 18 November 2013 on the previous hospital number in the name of ‘Jane Smith’. The Registrant admitted that she had made the request and that the tests were for her.
6. The test results from 5 November 2013 tests were not discovered before they were inputted onto the electronic patient record by the computer system. Accordingly, the patient, who was the true user of that hospital number, was associated for some time with test results which were not for her. This was later rectified.
7. A disciplinary hearing at the Registrant’s place of work took place on 14 January 2014 and it was found that the Registrant’s actions amounted to Gross Misconduct. She was issued with a Final Written Warning that would remain ‘live’ on her file for 30 months.
8. The matter was referred to the HCPC and considered by a fitness to practise Panel in September 2015 where a number of matters were found proved and it concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. That Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months.
9. This is a review under Article 30(1) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 of the substantive Conditions of Practice Order.
10. The Panel took into account both the oral and documentary evidence before it. The Registrant provided a detailed reflective statement, a reference confirming compliance with the Order and a number of up to date documents relating to CPD. It considered the submissions by both parties and it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
11. In coming to its decision the Panel took account of the Indicative Sanctions Policy and the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.
12. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. To this extent it had regard to the public interest and whether the Registrant’s conduct was remediable, whether it had been remedied and the risk of repetition.
13. The previous Panel noted that:
“In relation to particulars 1, 2 and 3 the Panel considered that these actions were capable of remedy. The evidence that remedial action had been taken was however insufficient to support a finding that her conduct had been wholly remedied. There was no evidence of a course or any training addressed at the specific elements exposed by her misconduct. There had been no piece of reflective writing presented which would show she had understood fully the potential impact her actions could have had. Further, there was limited insight into the potential impact her actions could have had. She had identified the potential for clinical harm to Patient A arising out of her actions however she had no insight into the impact her actions had on other professionals, her employer, her profession and the wider public. The Panel therefore concluded that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The Panel was particularly concerned that the Registrant had not appreciated that there was a significant professional boundary between taking bloods and testing them and the clinical analysis and interpretation of those test results by a duly qualified clinical practitioner.”
When considering an appropriate sanction that Panel considered that:
“…the Registrant had gone some way to developing insight into her conduct. In particular she had immediately acknowledged her wrongdoing and had been able to articulate the threats and risks she had exposed herself, and Patient A, to through her misconduct.
A Conditions of Practice Order would provide the Registrant with the opportunity and the time to develop fully her insight into her actions, an ability which the Panel believes the Registrant possesses. She has been on maternity leave since August 2014 and in addition has had to face the challenges posed by her Mother’s death and her Father’s continued ill health. The Panel noted that those circumstances had, to date, limited the Registrant’s ability to remedy fully her behaviour.
Although it is difficult to demonstrate that dishonesty has been remedied, in this case the Panel accepts that the Registrant’s real remorse is genuine and coupled with development of further insight makes the likelihood of repetition remote. Conditions of Practice would allow further time for the Registrant to demonstrate that she continues to be an honest and trustworthy member of her profession”.
14. The Registrant gave oral evidence to the Panel. She explained the work pattern that she has undertaken since the substantive decision was made. She confirmed that she would never behave in the manner that she has done in the past and had “learnt her lesson”.
15. The Registrant has from the outset of the HCPC’s investigations accepted that her conduct fell below acceptable standards of a registered Biomedical Scientist. The Panel gave careful consideration to the Registrant’s evidence during which she displayed a high level of insight as to the impact of her misconduct on service users, her employer and the reputation of the profession.
16. The Panel was impressed with the Registrant’s reflective statement, and her compliance with the conditions. It is apparent from her oral evidence that she has developed a full understanding as to the need to act with integrity, uphold proper professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Registrant also demonstrated an understanding of the professional boundary between taking bloods, testing them and clinical analysis. The documentation before the Panel demonstrates the Registrant’s sustained efforts in maintaining her insight.
17. The Panel has taken into account the public interest which includes protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding standards. It considers, given the Registrant’s level of insight and the ongoing support from her employer, that there is a minimal risk of repetition of the misconduct that was identified by the substantive Panel considering this case. The Panel noted that the misconduct in this case took place over a very short period of time and has to be seen against the background of the Registrant’s previous unblemished character and her good behaviour since the events in question. The Panel consider therefore, that the risk of repetition is negligible. The Panel also considered that the wider public interest in this case has been satisfied by the Registrant’s compliance with the Conditions of Practise Order.
18. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Miss Janelyn Manong
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|19/08/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||No further action|
|01/09/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Conditions of Practice|