Mr Kalpesh Ellis
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 radiographer at James Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust:
1. You breached confidentiality in that you obtained Service User A’s contact details from a Hospital database on or around 6 July 2014 without a work related reason to do so;
2. You contacted Service User A without professional justification:
a. On 6 July 2014 by telephone call, Whatsapp text messaging and/or by ‘Whatsapp’;
b. On 7 July 2014 by Whatsapp text messaging and/or by ‘Whatsapp’;
3. You sent Service User A inappropriate messages by Whatsapp text messaging and/or ‘Whatsapp’:
a. On 6 July 2014;
b. on 7 July 2014;
5. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 – 4 constitute misconduct;
6. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
1. The Registrant was employed in the radiology department at James Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘‘the Hospital’’) in 2007 as a student radiographer. He became a permanent employee within the Hospital in 2011 and was employed as a Band 5 radiographer responsible for a range of patients including outpatients, inpatients, GP patients and casualty patients.
2. On 3 July 2014 in the course of his employment at the Hospital, the Registrant carried out an x-ray on Service User A’s hand. On Sunday 6 July 2014 the Registrant called Service User A on his personal mobile, having obtained her personal mobile number from the Hospital database. In the course of the telephone conversation, he told Service User A that he had concerns that the x-ray of her thumb looked unusual. Thereafter, the Registrant also made contact with Service User A via Whatsapp, the mobile telephone messaging application.
3. Service User A was uncomfortable with the Registrant’s contact, and its content, and felt that it was inappropriate. She forwarded the messages to her mother, who is an employee at the Hospital, and a complaint against the Registrant was subsequently lodged at the Hospital.
4. Following an investigation, the Registrant was dismissed from employment.
5. The matter was reported to the HCPC, which resulted in these proceedings.
6. On 4-6 January 2016 a hearing of the Conduct and Competence Committee took place. Mr Ellis did not attend but was represented by his father, Mr Stephen Ellis. A number of findings of fact were made concerning inappropriate contact and messages between the Registrant and a Service User. That panel considered that those findings amounted to misconduct, found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and ordered that he be suspended for a period of 9 months. This is a review of that Order.
7. The Registrant attended the hearing, accompanied by his father, and gave evidence on oath. He produced a reflective essay for the Panel’s consideration. In his evidence he added that he had been keeping his CPD up to date, had learned lessons from the experience and was very apologetic for his behaviour. He assured the Panel that such an incident would not happen in the future.
8. The Panel accepted the evidence put before it today and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered the HCPC Practice Notes entitled ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired’ and ‘Article 30(2) Reviews.’
9. The Panel first determined whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Registrant attended this hearing, was fully engaged and gave evidence on oath. The Panel took account of the content of the reflective essay and the oral evidence the Registrant gave. The Panel considered that the Registrant had shown full insight into his behaviour. He demonstrated a full understanding of what he had done wrong, his appreciation of the potential for harm to Service Users, and assured the Panel that it would not happen in the future. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s expressions of full remorse and regret. Under questioning from the Panel, he gave a full and creditable explanation of his understanding of professional boundaries and information governance. The Panel noted the Registrant’s strong motivation to return to his profession. The Panel also noted that the Registrant’s misconduct was an isolated incident in almost seven years of an otherwise unblemished career. Taking all the evidence into account the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has learnt from the incident and that there is a low risk of repetition.
10. The Panel also considered that the public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process had been satisfied in this case by the original finding of impairment and the order of suspension made by the previous panel.
11. In all the circumstances put before it today the Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired. The Panel therefore revokes the current order of suspension.
History of Hearings for Mr Kalpesh Ellis
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|15/09/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||No further action|
|04/01/2016||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|