Mrs Tabitha Barnes-Ceeney
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.
Whilst registered as a Radiographer and during the course of your employment with
Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust:
1. On or around 12 October 2015 to 16 December 2015, you:
a. did not properly undertake hand views for bone age, in that you:
i. undertook examinations on consecutive
ii. did not follow protocol views.
b. did not read and/or follow clinical information for a Cervical Spine x-ray, in that you undertook anteroposterior and lateral views and not
flexion and extension views as required.
c. did not ensure that patient details were recorded correctly, in that you:
i. did not enter details onto the
Computerised Radiology Information System (CRIS) correctly;
ii. did not ensure images were saved in
correct "packets" on the Picture and Archiving
Communication System (PACS);
iii. did not undertake and / or record a
pregnancy check form on CRIS.
d. did not set up equipment as per standard procedure:
i. for lumbar Spine, by using incorrect
Focus to Film Distance (FFD) and not moving the
equipment as one unit
ii. for lateral Cervical Spine view, by setting
exposure incorrectly and not recognising this before
irradiating the patient.
e. did not undertake a chest x-ray using the correct settings;
f. did not recognise that the image produced as a result of (e) above, was inadequate and required a repeat.
2. After leaving employment with Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, you supplied incorrect information to an agency (Sanctuary
Personnel) in that:
a. you stated you were employed from August 2015 to December 2015, when you had actually been employed from 12 October 2015 to 16 December 2015; and
b. you stated that you were employed as a Radiographer, when you were not.
3. The matters set out at paragraph 2 were dishonest.
4. The matters set out in paragraph 1 constitutes misconduct and/or lack of competence.
5. The matters set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 constitute misconduct.
6. By reason of your misconduct
1. The Panel was aware that written notice of these proceedings was posted by first class post to the Registrant at her registered address on 04 December 2017. Notice was also served by email on the same day. The Panel was shown documents which established both the fact of the service and the identity of the Registrant’s registered address and of her email address. In these circumstances the Panel accepted that proper service of the notice had been effected in accordance with the rules.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. Mr Mason on behalf of the HCPC applied for these proceedings to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant.
3. Mr Mason told the Panel that the Registrant has informed the HCPC by an email dated 01 December 2017 that she will not be attending this hearing. In that email she stated “I….. want my name removed from the register without having a hearing to bring this situation to an end”. In that email the Registrant further stated that she had “decided to retain [sic] in another profession”.
4. The Panel is aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was one to be taken with great caution. However the Panel has decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The reasons are as follows:
• The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment and is party to and has signed the VRA.
• The Registrant has informed the HCPC that she will not be attending today’s hearing. The Panel has read the email dated 01 December 2017.
• There is no reason to suppose that an adjournment would result in the future attendance of the Registrant. Having regard to the underlying facts and what it has been told by Mr Mason, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant is very unlikely to attend a future hearing and further that no prejudice will be caused to her by proceeding in her absence.
• In all the circumstances the absence of the Registrant should be treated as voluntary.
5. The Registrant is a radiographer who was employed as a Band 4 Radiographer at the Salisbury District Hospital by the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust (The Trust) between 12 October 2015 and 16 December 2015. On 01 September 2016 the Registrant was referred to the HCPC by her former employers. Concerns were expressed about her clinical practice.
6. By an email dated 28 September 2016 a case manager employed by the HCPC wrote to the Registrant to inform her of the concerns that had been expressed by The Trust regarding her fitness to practise.
7. By an email dated 02 October 2016 the Registrant wrote to the HCPC and stated as follows “Thank you for your letter. I have thought about its contents and have decided that the best thing for me to do is to remove my name from the register. I do not want to follow radiography as a career. I would be grateful [if] you could let me know what I need to do to complete this action”
8. On 02 June 2017, following a meeting of a Panel of the HCPC Investigating Committee held on 30 May 2017, the HCPC wrote to the Registrant to inform her that the Panel of the Investigating Committee had determined that there was a case for her to answer in respect of the matters that were set out in that letter and which are now reflected in the Allegation set out in Schedule A to the VRA.
9. The Panel has seen the VRA, dated 14 December 2017, made between the Registrant and the HCPC. In that document the Registrant formally admits the Allegation which is set out in Schedule A to the VRA and has stated her desire to be removed from the Register. In the VRA, the HCPC stated that it is satisfied that the statutory objective of protecting the public would be satisfied if the Registrant was permitted to be removed from the Register on similar terms to those which would apply if the Registrant had been struck off the Register by an Order made under the relevant provisions of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [the Order]. Further the Registrant and the HCPC together stated “the parties have entered into this Agreement to enable the Allegation to be withdrawn and the Registrant to be removed from the Register as if a striking off order had been made against the Registrant”.
10. The Registrant has, pursuant to the VRA, signed a letter in the prescribed form addressed to the Registrar of the HCPC, asking for her name to be removed from the Register and recording the fact that she had formally admitted the Allegation. The Panel has seen that document.
11. Mr Mason on behalf of the HCPC has asked the Panel to exercise its discretion to consider and approve the VRA and, in particular, to permit the withdrawal by the HCPC of the Allegation set out in Schedule A to the VRA and to approve the voluntary removal by the Registrant of her name from the Register.
12. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
13. The Panel has had regard to the Practice Note which the HCPTS had published on 22 March 2017 entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent”. The Panel has also considered the oral submissions of Mr Mason. The Panel has further considered all the documents that have been produced. In particular the Panel has noted the “Agreed Statement” annexed to the VRA which states “That the allegation was withdrawn by the HCPC on the basis that the Registrant wished to be removed from the HCPC Register voluntarily. The Registrant admitted the allegation and has undertaken not to practise as a Radiographer or use any title associated with that profession. If the Registrant seeks to return at any time the application would be treated as if the Registrant had been struck off as a result of that allegation.”
14. Having heard the submissions of Mr Mason and read and considered all the material before it, the Panel has noted that:
• The Registrant has admitted the Allegation in full and has done so at an early stage in the fitness to practise process.
• The public will be adequately protected by the voluntary removal of the Registrant’s name from the register, which will have the same effect as if she had been struck off under the relevant provisions of the Order.
• There are no reasons of a public interest kind to require a hearing of the Allegation that is set out in Schedule A to the VRA.
15. For all the reasons that are set out above the Panel has determined to approve the outcome sought in the VRA with immediate effect; in particular the Panel agrees that the HCPC should be permitted to withdraw the Allegation and that the Registrant shall voluntarily remove her name from the Register with effect from today’s date.
16. The Panel therefore determined that the HCPC may withdraw the allegation set out above in accordance with the VRA and that Mrs Tabitha Barnes - Ceeney is to be permitted to remove her name from the HCPC Register with immediate effect.
The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Tabitha Barnes-Ceeney from the Register with immediate effect.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mrs Tabitha Barnes-Ceeney
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|23/01/2018||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Voluntary Removal agreed|