Mr Leonard I Odu

Profession: Radiographer

Registration Number: Mr Leonard I Odu

Hearing Type: Restoration Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 26/04/2019 End: 17:00 26/04/2019

Location: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Restoration not granted

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

During the course of your employment as a Radiographer at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust between 1 November 2004 and July 2012, on 19 January 2012 you:

 

1.Did not follow the Patient Identification Checks Procedure before undertaking a computerised tomography (CT) scan on Patient A.
2. Erroneously conducted a full head scan on Patient A rather than an abdominal scan.
3. Asked a colleague, SV, to delete patient imaging data relating to Patient A from the PACS system.
4. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 3 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.
5. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practice is impaired.

Finding

Background

1.Between 1 November 2004 and July 2012 Mr Odu (the Applicant) was employed as a Radiographer at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The HCPC carried out an investigation into events on 19 January 2012 which occurred while the Registrant was employed at the Trust.

2.On 6 January 2014, a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee considered an Allegation that the Applicant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The Applicant did not attend and was not represented at the final Hearing. The Final Hearing Panel found that on 19 January 2012 the Registrant failed to follow Patient Identification Checks before undertaking a computerised tomography (CT) scan on Patient A, had erroneously conducted a full head scan on Patient A rather than an abdominal scan, and dishonestly asked a colleague to delete patient imaging data relating to Patient A from the PAC system. The Panel found the facts of the Allegation proved and that that they constituted misconduct. It decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and made a Striking Off Order.

3.In its decision that Panel noted that the matters found proved were serious. There were serious lapses of professional standards which had the potential to cause patient harm. There was a deliberate dishonest attempt to conceal the initial errors. When the Applicant made his mistake of identification he sought to cover it up, and in his submission to the Investigation Committee he tried to put the blame on colleagues. The Applicant had shown no remorse and very limited insight.

4.By e-mails dated 4 February 2019 and 21 February 2019 the Applicant made a request for restoration to the Register.

Decision

5.This Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Restoration to the Register”. The Panel was provided with and read the decision of the Court of Appeal in General Medical Council v Chandra [2018] EWCA Civ 1898.

6.The Panel considered carefully the documents provided by the Applicant in support of his application for restoration. The Applicant provided evidence that he worked as a Radiographer in Nigeria until 2017 and that this included a role as a consultant CT and Training Radiographer. He provided a letter of good standing from the Radiographers Registration Board of Nigeria. The documents also included certificates confirming completion of several training courses.

7.The Panel heard evidence from the Applicant. He asked to be restored to the Register so that he could practise as a Radiographer and he gave an assurance to the Panel that there would be no repetition of the conduct that led to the Striking Off Order.

8.The Applicant was invited to comment on various findings made by the Final Hearing Panel. In his answers he denied that he had been dishonest, sought to cover up a mistake, or placed the blame on colleagues. In his evidence he did not accept the findings of the Final Hearing Panel relating to dishonesty. He did not demonstrate to the Panel an understanding of the seriousness of the finding of dishonesty made by the Final Hearing Panel.

9.The Panel first considered the matters which led to the striking off and the reasons given by the Final Hearing Panel. The Panel noted the seriousness of the findings including the potential for harm to the patient, the deliberate dishonest attempt to conceal errors, repeated misconduct, and the placing of blame on colleagues.

10.The Panel next considered whether the Applicant accepts and has insight into the matters. The Applicant demonstrated some insight in relation to the identification error and the risks which may arise from such errors, but he did not demonstrate insight in relation to the serious finding of dishonesty. He did not refer to the implication of such a serious finding on public confidence in himself, his profession, or the regulator.

11.The Panel understood that the Applicant had personal reasons for not attending the Final Hearing Panel, but noted that he had not taken any steps to appeal the decision. The Panel’s view was that the Registrant was seeking to persuade the Panel to go behind the decision of the Final Hearing. This was inappropriate and demonstrated a continuing lack of insight, as set out in the Practice Note.

12.The Panel noted that dishonesty is very difficult to remedy. The Applicant did not accept the full findings of the Final Hearing Panel and did not demonstrate insight in respect of the finding of dishonesty. Therefore, he did not persuade the Panel that he is capable of resolving the matter.

13.The Panel considered that the Applicant has taken some steps to keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date, but that these have been relatively limited.

14.The Panel concluded that the Registrant has not discharged the burden of proof which is on him to demonstrate that he is a fit and proper person to practise as a Radiographer, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to the striking off.

15.The Panel therefore decided to refuse the Applicant’s application to be restored to the Register.

Order

The Panel refuses the application for restoration to the Registrant.

Notes

This is a Restoration Hearing taking place at HCPTS London on Friday 26 April 2019 at 10:00am.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Leonard I Odu

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
26/04/2019 Conduct and Competence Committee Restoration Hearing Restoration not granted