Mr Mohammed Faheem
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
Matter 1
1. On dates between 1 June 2006 and 30 June 2006 you contacted a client Patient A whom you had scanned at the request of a GP and
2 In an email dated 8 June 2006 you persuaded Patient A
a. that an intimate internal scan was clinically indicated which was incorrect and/or
b. advised her how to encourage her own GP to request an appointment with you for an intimate internal scan and/or
3. No evidence offered.
4. In an email dated 21 June 2006 you offered Patient A a choice of appointment dates which you had selected so Patient A had to be scanned by you and
5 On 27 June 2006 you performed an intimate procedure on Patient A
a. on your own authorisation
b. without clinical justification
c. without chaperone or other safeguard to Patient A’s privacy and dignity
6. In emails you sent to Patient A between 8 June 2006 and 27 June 2006 you used inappropriate language
7 The matters set out in 1, and 2 a, 2 b, 4, 5 a, 5 b, 5 c and 6, were sexually motivated and thereby constitute misconduct
8 By reason of that misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired
Matter 2
1. On 13 November 2008 you examined a number of patients without being accompanied by a supervisor, as you had been required to do
following a previous incident, thus failing to cooperate with an investigation into your conduct by your employer
2. On 13 November 2008 you used foul language and made derogatory comments about a colleague, resulting in a complaint being made to
your supervisors by a patient
3. The matters set out in 1 and 2 constitute misconduct
4. By reason of that misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired
Matter 3
1. [Not proved]
2. On dates between 7 August 2007 and 17 December 2007 you undertook 68 Ultrasound examinations which you should have reported on the same day or within 24 hours and the average delay in your reporting was between 20 and 21 days
3. On 12 February 2008 you performed an abdominal ultrasound scan on Patient B and you told the patient to await your referral for a ‘camera test’. This advice was:
a. not within your scope of practise and
b. caused distress and alarm to the patient
5. On 4 January 2008 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient D and your reported results could not be independently verified by Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 28 February 2008
6. On 3 December 2007 you performed an abdominal scan on Patient E who had been referred to you for a Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) scan and you recorded on 11 December 2007 that the scan had been redone but Patient E had to be recalled and rescanned on 19 February 2008
7. On 25 October 2007 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient F and your reported results could not be independently verified by Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 6 March 2008
8. On 24 September 2007 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient G and your reported results could not be independently verified by Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 19 October 2007
9. On 11 September 2007 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient G and you did not type your report until 25 October 2009 and your reported results could not be independently verified by Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 14 January 2008
10. On 29 October 2007 Patient H reported to the Salford Royal NHS Trust that you had performed Transabdominal Ultrasound Examination of her on 17 August 2007 and
a. you had told the patient that her two options were to ‘accept her menorrhagia or have a hysterectomy’ and
b. you told the patient that she could not have laser treatment as she had ‘too many fibroids’ and
c. the advice described in 10 a and 10 b was
i. outside your scope of practise and
ii.caused alarm and distress to the patient
11. On 7 June 2007 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient I and your reported results could not be independently verified by Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 5 March 2008
12. On 31 May 2007 you undertook a Carotid Artery Doppler scan on Patient J and your reported results could not be verified by a Carotid Artery Duplex Assessment on 22 August 2007
13. On 29 June 2005 you undertook a Transabdominal Ultrasound Pelvic scan on Patient K and
a. you told the patient that she might need surgery on an poorly healed Caesarian section scar
b. you recorded a clinical opinion that a gynaecological referral to a particular clinic would be advisable and
c. the advice and action described in 13 a and 13 b
i. caused alarm and distress to the patient and
ii.was outside your scope of practise
14. [Not proved]
15. On 8 October 2003 you performed a pelvic ultrasound scan on Patient M and you discussed your opinion in respect of the scan results with her and that discussion of your medical opinion with the patient was
a. outside your scope of practise and
b. caused alarm and distress to the patient
16. The matters set out in numbers 1 and/or 2, 3 a, 3 b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a, 10b, 10c (i), 10c (ii), 11, 12, 13a, 13b, 13c (i), 13c (ii),
15 a and/or 15 b constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence
17. By reason of that misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired
Finding
Background
1. The Applicant qualified as a Radiographer in 1986. At the time of the Allegation was employed by Salford Royal NHS Trust.
2. On 20-22 September 2010 and January 2011, the allegations against the Applicant narrated above were found proved. At various dates between 2003 and 2008, the Applicant was involved in incidents when he scanned patients incorrectly and gave advice outside the scope of his practise. He delayed reporting the results of scans and his results could not be verified. He examined patients without a supervisor and made derogatory comments about a colleague. The Applicant performed an intimate scan on a patient that was not clinically justified and was found to be sexually motivated.
3. The final hearing panel found that the failings identified above constituted misconduct and lack of competence. The Applicant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The panel determined that the Applicant’s name should be struck off the HCPC Register.
4. In June 2019 the Applicant made enquiries with the HCPC about restoring his name to the HCPC Register. He was advised to submit a full application which was received in November 2019.
5. The hearing was convened in terms of Article 33 of the 2001 Order. The burden was upon the Applicant to satisfy the Panel that he is now fit to practise and that his name should be restored to the Register.
Decision
6. The Panel bore in mind that its primary function is to protect the public and to maintain confidence in the profession. It has not gone behind the decision made in 2011. It has referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Restoration to the Register”.
7. In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken into account all the information before it, together with the evidence of the Applicant and the submissions made on his behalf. It has also taken into account the submissions of Ms Denholm, on behalf of the HCPC. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
8. Since 2013, the Applicant has undertaken ultrasound related work. The Applicant is employed by Mediscan Diagnostic Services. He is employed to provide support and ongoing training to junior clinical members of staff and training to newly appointed sonographers. In addition, he undertakes an audit role managing any discrepancies in reporting.
9. A document was provided from NE, Consultant Radiologist and CEO of Mediscan, that confirmed that there had been no concerns with the Applicant’s work and he was a respected colleague. NE confirmed that he had supported the Applicant’s continued clinical development. In addition, as part of his role the Applicant had undertaken a number of courses dealing with ultrasound and other related topics.
10. The Applicant provided a variety of additional documentation including his CV, which outlined training that had been undertaken with his current employer. The Applicant also provided testimonials from colleagues and trainees.
11. In relation to returning to practice, the Panel noted the minimum requirements of those returning to work after more than 5 years. A person not registered for a period of 5 years, must undertake 60 days of profession related activities, in accordance with the HCPC requirements for professionals returning to practice.
12. The Panel considered the Legal Assessor’s advice that, in relation to someone previously struck off, it is not sufficient for an applicant merely to establish that he meets the requisite standard of clinical proficiency for registration.
13. The Panel has taken into consideration the circumstances of the Striking Off Order made in 2011 and the serious concerns identified about the Applicant’s conduct and competence, in particular, that there was a finding of sexually motivated conduct.
14. The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant has undertaken significant steps to address the concerns that were highlighted at the time of his striking off from the Register. The Applicant has worked in a teaching and audit role and appears to have performed well in this role and be well respected by his line manager and students. On the basis of the Applicant’s evidence in relation to the work that he has undertaken in his current role, coupled with the training that he has undertaken, and the statements from NE, the Panel was satisfied that the Applicant meets the standard of proficiency for registration.
15. The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant has reflected on the incidents that resulted in his original striking off and has shown a degree of insight. The Registrant stated in his evidence that he had reflected significantly. He expressed genuine remorse for his conduct and had an understanding of the serious lapse in his professionalism. He explained that he had been experiencing some very difficult personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct but he had taken steps to resolve these including undertaking counselling at his own expense.
16. The Panel noted that the Applicant did not seek to go behind the findings of the previous Panel and accepted responsibility for his actions. He did not seek to blame others or excuse his conduct. He explained that he was not thinking clearly at the relevant time and that he no longer considered the allegations were a conspiracy against him. He explained that he did not recognise himself and although he was faced with difficult circumstances, he accepted that he had made poor judgements which were wholly out of character given his previously long unblemished career.
17. He explained that if faced with circumstances similar to the ones which led to his being struck off the Register, he would do things differently. He understood the importance of clear communication and record keeping and reporting results without delay. He was able to explain the importance of chaperones and, if permitted to return to the Register, he would ensure that one was present at all times. The Applicant was realistic about the level of his skills and readily admitted that he would require refresher training in relation to some aspects of his practice. The Panel considers that the Applicant has taken significant steps since his striking off to address the issues identified.
18. However, the Panel is not satisfied that it is yet appropriate for the Applicant to return to unrestricted practise. The Panel does have some residual concerns in relation to his level of insight into the potential impact that his actions might have had on patients and the profession. The Panel considered his reflection was lacking in this aspect. In addition the Panel was concerned that the Applicant had not fully reflected on the sexual misconduct element and although it did not consider he was at risk of repeating his misconduct it concluded that his reflection on the impact his conduct had on Patient A was lacking.
19. The Panel notes that although the Applicant has been successfully working in a role related to sonography, he has no recent experience working as an autonomous Radiographer. The Panel was nevertheless satisfied that conditions could be formulated to adequately address these concerns. Demonstration of successfully working under supervision and appropriate commitment to a Personal Development Plan would be necessary before a panel could consider his returning to unrestricted practise.
20. The Application for restoration shall be granted with a Conditions of Practice Order being imposed.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to restore the name of Mohammed Faheem (the Applicant) to the Radiographer Part of the Register, but restoration is only to take effect once the Applicant has:
a) provided the Registrar with any information and declarations required for admission to the Register;
b) paid the prescribed restoration fee; [and]
c) satisfied the Registrar that, in relation to the Applicant, there is or will be in force appropriate cover under an indemnity arrangement.
The Registrar is further directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (the Operative Date), the Applicant must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must only undertake work that requires registration by the HCPC with your current employer.
2. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment and provide your employment details.
3. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary or capability proceedings taken against you by any employer employing you to undertake any role that requires you to be registered with the HCPC.
4. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c) any prospective employer (at the time of your application).
5. You must not carry out any of the following procedures unsupervised, until you have been signed off as competent to undertake these procedures independently, by your workplace supervisor;
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning
6. You must not carry out trans-vaginal scans.
7. You must not carry out any other procedures unsupervised unless you have completed refresher training and you have been signed off as competent by your workplace supervisor.
8. Except in life threatening emergencies you must not be involved in the direct provision of services to female patients without a chaperone being present.
9. You must maintain a record of:
a) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to female patients, in each case signed by the chaperone; and
b) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to such services in a life-threatening emergency and without a chaperone being present
10. You must provide a copy of these records to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review of this order.
11. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 3 weeks of the Operative date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.
12. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in your practical experience of the following areas of your practice:
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning
v) Record Keeping
13. Within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.
14. You must meet with your supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
15. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.
16. You must provide a copy of your completed Personal Development Plan to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.
17. You must produce a reflective piece detailing the progress you have made in developing your insight regarding impact of your misconduct on patients and the wider profession and including any learning. The completed reflective piece to be provided to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.
18. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Mohammed Faheem
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15/01/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
| 16/11/2020 | Investigating Committee | Restoration Hearing | Restored |