Simeon Agbonkhina

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to consider an application made by Mr Simeon Agbonkhina (hereafter “the Applicant”) under Article 33(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 that his name be restored to the Biomedical Scientist part of the HCPC Register. Until his name was removed from the Register as a result of a Striking Off order made on 24 November 2016, the Applicant was registered with the HCPC as a Biomedical Scientist (hereafter “BMS”). The application was made by a letter dated 19 January 2022 addressed to the Registrar.

Background

2. The Striking Off order that removed the Applicant’s name from the HCPC Register was made in the fitness to practise proceedings identified as FTP46926. However, in order fully to describe those proceedings it will first be necessary first to refer to, and summarise, what occurred in earlier fitness to practise proceedings concerning the Applicant, namely FTP02691.

FTP02691

3. On 22 November 2011, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee determined that the following allegation was well founded:

During your practice as a Biomedical Scientist at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust for the period between May 2005 and July 2008 you:

1. Failed to meet the required standards of competency across the full range of Biomedical Scientist technical activity within the department, in particular:

(b) In Special Bacteriology, in that you:

i. were unable to interpret medical round reports and provide an opinion/decision on required action;

ii. were unable to recognise discrepancies between presumptive identifications and the results returned by the antibiotic laboratory;

iii. failed to consistently meet 24 hour and 48 hour – 5 day targets;

(c) In Diagnostic Swabs, in that you:

i. were unable to retain skills you were trained in on D-bench;

ii. did not complete tasks in a timely manner causing delayed result reporting and a knock on effect on normal laboratory operations; 

2. The matters set out in 1(b)i, 1(b)ii, 1(b)iii, (c)i and 1(c)ii constitute a lack of competence.

3. By reason of your lack of competence, your fitness to practise is impaired.

4. The sanction imposed by the panel which found the above allegation to be well founded was a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months. In view of the fact that that order was varied before it became material to the Striking Off order made in the later proceedings, it is not necessary to reproduce the specific conditions imposed at this time.

5. The Conditions of Practice Order was reviewed on 28 November 2012 and again on 29 November 2013, and on each occasion the Conditions of Practice Order was extended for a period of 12 months from the expiry of the previous period of 12 months.

6. On 7 November 2014, the order was reviewed for the third time. The present Panel considers that it is appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 22 to 29 inclusive of the written determination of the panel that conducted the third review. They said this:

“22. The Panel has identified areas of continuing concern relating to the Registrant’s ability to work as an autonomous practitioner, such that it considers that some form of restriction is still required to ensure Service User protection and otherwise in the public interest. The areas of concern remain those as identified at the last mandatory review in November 2013, namely: sensitivity testing and Quantiferon, urines, respiratory, fluids, and blood cultures.

23. The Panel considers that a Caution Order would not provide the requisite level of Service User protection as there are still outstanding areas of deficiency in clinical skills.

24. The Panel has given careful consideration to the practicability of continuing a Conditions of Practice Order. As part of that consideration the Panel has identified two issues.

25. First, that through sequential amendments of the wording of the conditions, the mischief which the conditions are meant to address has been obscured. The first set of Conditions imposed on 22 November 2011 had been constructed to work within the specific environment within which the Registrant was then working, an environment where he was moving around the sections relating to Bacteriology. The use of the term ‘relevant to your then current role’ was pertinent at that time. However, when that Condition was revised to reflect the fact that the Registrant had been signed off in some elements and was not in employment the variation continued with this wording leading to the interpretation that the need to demonstrate proficiency in specified areas of practice was confined to the discipline of Bacteriology. In the Panel’s view this is not the correct interpretation.

26. The fact that the Registrant has not appreciated that his deficiencies are spread over a wider area of practice than Bacteriology is the second issue that was of concern to the Panel.

27. In redrafting the Conditions the Panel has taken into account the following:

• The need for the Registrant to take control and responsibility for his personal development with a view to returning to unrestricted practice. The Registrant should be aware in addition to what he may learn from his employment, he can take advantage of workshops run by academic institutions and professional bodies.

• The fact that should the Registrant not be in employment he can obtain supervision from any qualified Biomedical Scientist; this could be a fellow professional known through a professional body for instance.

• The Panel has adopted the term Personal Development Plan in line with acknowledged current practice.

28.The Panel has decided that it will provide the Registrant with a further period of twelve months in which to address his deficiencies. The terms of the Conditions of Practice Order are set out below.

29.In addition to outstanding competence issues, when assessing the level of restriction to place on the Registrant, the Panel took into consideration the Registrant’s action in concealing the existence of his Conditions of Practice Order from the employment agency and his temporary employer. This concealment was in clear breach of the requirement that the Registrant be open and honest about the limitations on his registration. The Panel considered that this was a serious matter as it not only brought the Registrant into disrepute but put Service Users at potential risk. This element led to the Panel giving the imposition of a Suspension Order serious consideration. However, the Panel noted that whilst this breach was a serious one it is a solitary incident in the three years that the Registrant has been under a Conditions of Practice Order. Further, the Registrant has been actively engaging in the process and has been proactive in seeking suitable employment and has made some progress towards addressing his failings. The Panel has therefore come to the decision that to suspend the Registrant at this time would be punitive and disproportionate.”

7. The circumstances of the concealment referred to in the last-quoted paragraph of the determination were explained earlier in the determination at paragraph 13 in these terms:

“Through an agency the Registrant secured a one month contract within the Northwick Park Hospital working in the ‘Gram negative pick offs section’, an area of practice that did not involve the five areas of practice where he had not been signed off as competent. At the end of his contract the Hospital had been willing to offer a permanent position; however, when the Hospital discovered that the Registrant was the subject of Conditions of Practice, having not been previously informed, they withdrew the job offer. There was an acceptance by the Registrant that he should have told the Hospital about the Conditions and that he had tried to conceal them because he was desperate for work and believed, as it proved to be the case, that he would not have gained employment if he had disclosed the existence of the Conditions. The Registrant stated that he appreciated that what he did had been a breach of his Conditions. He accepted that his act of concealment had been foolish and he confirmed that there would be no repetition.”

8. The outcome of the third review was that the Conditions of Practice Order was extended for a further period of 12 months. The order imposed was in the following form:

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that for a period of twelve months from the date on which the current Order expires, you, Simeon Agbonkhina, must comply with the following Conditions of Practice.

1. Unless you are signed off as competent, you must not carry out work in the following areas unless supervised by a qualified Biomedical Scientist;

Sensitivity testing and Quantiferon;

Urine samples;

Respiratory samples;

Fluid samples;

Blood cultures.

2. You must develop a Personal Development Plan to address the deficiencies in your practice as identified in Condition 1.

3. You must forward the Personal Development Plan to the HCPC within four weeks of today.

4. Every three months you must send/forward to the HCPC an updated version of your Personal Development Plan reflecting the progress you have made with achieving that Personal Development Plan.

5. You must inform the HCPC of any change in your employment, whether for paid or unpaid employment or voluntary work. Professional employment as a BMS only.

6. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

7. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

a. any organisation or person employing or contracting 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 application).

8. Any condition requiring you to provide any information to the HCPC is to be met by you sending the information to the offices of the HCPC, marked for the attention of the Director of Fitness to Practise.

9. Two elements of the conditions imposed are relevant for present purposes:

• The order was due to commence on 20 December 2014 (when the previous order ended) and, being an order imposed for 12 months, it was to run until 20 December 2015.

• Conditions 7(b) and (c) emphasised the obligation to inform parties of the conditions of practice at the time of application. The underlining in the order as reproduced above was included in the Order at the conclusion of the written determination.

10. To conclude the short chronology of events surrounding FTP02961, the order imposed on 7 November 2014 was reviewed on 20 November 2015. This was the fourth review following the original hearing of this allegation. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the written determination of the panel conducting that review were as follows (the present Panel has added emphasis to passages that it considers relevant to the present restoration application):

“8. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. It considered this in the context of criteria as set out in Cohen. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s lack of competence was remediable and, in this regard, the Panel agreed with previous Panels. The Panel considered that the Registrant has taken considerable steps to remediate his lack of competence including creating and following a detailed personal development plan. This demonstrates his improved knowledge of the areas of concern. In addition, the reference from the Chief Biomedical Scientist indicates that he is currently working at a good level. The Registrant informed the Panel that he has been asked to undertake training of new members of staff, which indicates that he is trusted to work to a consistently good standard. However, the nature of the Registrant’s current role is such that he has not been able to demonstrate the ability to translate his academic knowledge into practice in the work environment.

9. Although the Registrant has demonstrated insight and his ability to work as a Biomedical Scientist to the required standard in the areas of work in which he is currently engaged, the Panel remains concerned that the constraints of that post have not enabled him to provide evidence of the wider capability required in practice. Accordingly, there remains a risk of recurrence of the errors which were identified at the Final Hearing that risk is low but it does mean the Registrant’s fitness to practise therefore remains impaired.”

11. Despite the finding just quoted relating to the Applicant still not having been able to provide evidence of the wider capability required in practice, on this occasion the cycle of repeated conditions of practice orders was broken because the panel sitting on 20 November 2015 imposed a Caution Order that was to take effect following the expiry of the Conditions of Practice Order on 20 December 2015. The Order, as expressed in the written determination, was as follows:

“ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Simeon E Agbonkhina with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 2 years from the date this order comes into effect.

The order imposed today will apply from 20 December 2015.”

The significance of the fact that the substitution of the Caution Order did not take immediate effect, but only came into force on 20 December 2015, will become clear when the Panel explains the allegation which resulted in the Applicant being struck off the HCPC Register.

FTP46926

12. On 23 and 24 November 2016, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee was convened to consider the following allegation made by the HCPC against the Applicant:

While registered as a Biomedical Scientist, you were subject to a Conditions of Practice Order that required you to “inform any prospective employer (at the time of application)” that you were subject to conditions of practice, and you:

1. On or around 28 November 2015, applied for the position of Biomedical Scientist Band 5 and/or Band 6 in the Microbiology Department of St. Helier Hospital, and on the application form did not:

a. Inform that you had been the subject of a fitness to practise investigation and proceedings by a regulatory body in the UK

b. Provide details of the proceedings that you were subject to at the time

c. Inform that you were at the time subject to conditions of practice made on your registration by a fitness to practise committee in the UK

2. Your actions at paragraph 1 were dishonest.

3. The matters described in paragraphs 1 - 2 amount to misconduct.

4. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

13. The evidence received by the panel hearing FTP46926 was that on 28 November 2015 (that is to say, a little over a year after the Applicant had said he would not repeat the incident referred to in paragraph 7 above, three weeks after the fourth review was conducted and three weeks before the Conditions of Practice Order was due to be replaced by the Caution Order), the Applicant applied for a position as a BMS at St. Helier Hospital. In completing the application form, the Applicant left bank the space following the pre-printed words, “Any other information relevant to your registration such as sections of the register or restrictions on practice”.

14. The panel hearing that case determined that the allegation was well founded. Each element of the facts alleged was determined to be proven. In finding dishonesty (an element admitted by the Applicant at the hearing in November 2016), the panel stated this (in paragraphs 21 and 22 of its written determination):

“The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s deliberate concealment of his fitness to practise history and current Conditions of Practice Order was dishonest. The Registrant knew that disclosure of his conditions was a specific requirement of his Conditions of Practice Order. The fact that the Registrant may have gone on to make full disclosure of his fitness to practise history, had he been shortlisted for the post, did not make his actions at the time of the application anything less than dishonest. The Registrant chose to conceal his Conditions of Practice to improve his chances of being shortlisted for the role as his current contract of employment was due to expire at the end of December 2015.

The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s actions were dishonest by the standard of honest and reasonable people. At the time the Registrant deliberately omitted the relevant disclosures, he chose to set his own standard, although he knew his actions were dishonest by the standards of honest and reasonable people.”

15. The panel found that the proven facts amounted to misconduct which was currently impairing his fitness to practise. Included in the panel’s findings in relation to the personal component of impairment of fitness to practise, the following was stated in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the determination:

“The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated any insight. He did not seem to understand the seriousness of dishonest acts. In particular, the Registrant did not demonstrate that he fully appreciated the consequences of his actions on public trust and confidence and the regulatory process. The Registrant’s approach in relation to disclosure in this particular occasion suggests a failure to understand and take seriously his professional obligation to be trustworthy at all times. There was also no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant had properly reflected on the impact of his behaviour on St Helier Hospital, who received his employment application(s), based on a legitimate expectation of openness and honesty.

The Panel recognised that demonstrating remediation following a finding of dishonesty is particularly difficult, as probity issues are reliant on attitude, which can often only be inferred from conduct. The Registrant’s dishonest conduct relates to a discrete set of circumstances, which is capable of remediation, however the Panel was not satisfied that there was any insight and therefore it concluded that the risk of repetition is high. In reaching this conclusion the Panel took into account the Registrant’s assurances to the review panel that he would not repeat his previous failure to disclose his Conditions of Practice and then just over a year later went onto repeat the failure. The Panel concluded that for these reasons the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired based on the personal component.”

16. Before explaining the panel’s reasoning in deciding that the appropriate sanction was a Striking Off order, there is another matter relevant to the hearing of FTP46926 that should be mentioned. The Applicant called two character witnesses. The panel’s assessment of those witnesses was that it had no reason to doubt that they were anything other than honest and reliable witnesses. However, the panel found their evidence to be of limited assistance because they were unaware of the full extent of the allegations or of the Applicant’s admitted conduct. During his evidence before the panel, the Applicant was asked questions about the circumstances in which the witnesses had come to give evidence. What then transpired is best explained by quoting from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the determination:

“When questioned about how his character witness statements came to be produced he initially lied by informing the Panel that he had no involvement. After being released from his oath and after the luncheon adjournment the Registrant was recalled. He admitted on this occasion that his previous response had been a lie. He stated that he had provided the character witnesses with a template and took the Panel through the sections of each statement that were part of the original template.

The Panel formed the view that the Registrant’s evidence demonstrated a deliberate attempt to mislead and this had the effect of undermining his evidence as a whole.”

17. Given the importance of the reasons for the making of a Striking Off order for the purposes of the decision to be made on the current restoration application, the present Panel considers that the reasons of the former panel for making the Striking Off order should be repeated verbatim. They appear at paragraphs 47 to 51 of the determination, and include the reason why it was decided that the making of a suspension order was not appropriate.

“The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. A Suspension Order would send a signal to the Registrant, the profession and the public re- affirming the standards expected of a registered Biomedical Scientist. However, although the Registrant has fully engaged with these proceedings, he has demonstrated no insight into his wrongdoings and has not remediated his previous misconduct to the extent that the risk of repetition remains high, despite his assurance to the reviewing panel in November 2014 that his failure to disclose his Conditions of Practice Order would not be repeated. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had demonstrated a blatant disregard for the regulatory process and his obligations as a registered professional. Such behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

In these circumstances a Suspension Order would not be sufficient to maintain public trust in the profession and the regulatory process and would not have a deterrent effect on other registrants. The Panel balanced the wider public interest against the Registrant’s interests. In doing so, the Panel took into account the fact that the Registrant struggled to find employment when he was subject to restrictions and the consequential personal, financial and professional impact this had upon him.

Having determined that a Suspension Order does not meet the wider public interest the Panel determined that the Registrant’s name should be removed from the Register. A Striking Off order is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those category of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public or the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s case falls into this category because of the nature and gravity of his misconduct, his persistent lack of insight and the high risk of repetition.

The Panel was also satisfied that any lesser sanction would undermine public confidence. The Panel had regard to the impact a Striking Off order would have on the Registrant, but concluded that his interests were significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to the significant public interest concerns raised by this case.

The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Striking Off order.”

18. The Striking Off order imposed on 24 November 2016 came into effect on 22 December 2016 after the expiry of the period during which the Applicant could have appealed the decision.

Submissions of the parties at the present hearing

19. In advance of the hearing, the Applicant provided a bundle of documents running to 20 PDF pages. This bundle included a statement made by the Applicant and dated 17 November 2022. During the hearing further documents were supplied by the Applicant, and yet further documents were received after the hearing was adjourned on 1 December 2022 (the HCPC Presenting Officer having confirmed that there was no objection to the Panel receiving further documents provided by the Applicant unless explicit objection was made by or on behalf of the HCPC). It is not necessary for the Panel to itemise all of the documents received, but the Panel does confirm that they have all been read and carefully considered before the Panel’s decision was made.

20. The Applicant also gave oral evidence to the Panel. He was cross-examined by the HCPC Presenting Officer and asked questions by the Panel.

21. The Presenting Officer carefully and concisely outlined the background to the application and made submissions as to the proper approach to the consideration of an application for restoration to the HCPC Register.

Decision

22. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor and it paid close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Restoration to the Register” issued in June 2022 (the Panel did not pay regard to the old Practice Note of the same name included in the hearing bundle prepared by the HCPC).

23. The Panel has approached this application by applying the following principles:

• That five years had elapsed since the Striking Off order came into effect before the application for restoration was made.

• That the Panel must not grant the application for restoration unless it is satisfied, on such evidence that it may require, that the Applicant:

o meets the general requirements for registration; and

o is a fit and proper person to practise as a BMS, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to the Striking Off order being made.

• That it is for the Applicant to demonstrate that his name should be restored to the Register; it is not for the HCPC to demonstrate that it should not be.

• When considering whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a BMS, the Panel should consider if his fitness to practise is currently impaired.

• The issues to be considered by the Panel include:

o the matters which led to the Striking Off and the reasons given by the panel that made the Striking Off order for imposing that sanction;

o whether the Applicant accepts and has insight into those matters;

o whether the Applicant has resolved those matters, has the willingness and ability to do so, or whether they are capable of being resolved by the Applicant;

o what other remedial or rehabilitative steps the Applicant has taken;

o what steps the Applicant has taken to keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date.

• The Panel recognised the powers that it has in relation to conditional restoration.

24. The Panel was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the application; as has already been stated, the Striking Off order came into effect on 22 December 2016 and the application or restoration was made by a letter dated 19 January 2022, over five years later.

Is the Applicant a fit and proper person to practise as a BMS?

25. As the Striking Off order was made as a result of a finding of misconduct that included dishonesty, the Panel commenced by considering the issue of the Registrant’s character.

26. The history of the matter explained by the Panel above demonstrates that there have been three separate and distinct instances of behaviour that demonstrated a marked lack of probity. To recapitulate, they were:

• The incident that occurred between the second and third reviews (i.e. between 29 November 2013 and 7 November 2014) when the Applicant applied through an agency for a position at Northwick Park Hospital deliberately ignoring the requirement that he should disclose the existence of the Conditions of Practice Order (paragraph 7 above).

• The dishonest application for the position at St Helier Hospital on 28 November 2015 when he not only failed to disclose the Conditions of Practice Order as he was required to do, but omitted to reply to the relevant question asked by the Hospital that would have revealed the still on-going fitness to practise proceedings (paragraphs 11 to 13 above).

• The deliberate attempt to mislead the panel that made the Striking Off order in November 2016 as to the circumstances in which his character witnesses came to give their evidence (paragraph 15 above).

27. These three incidents occurred in a period of not more than three years. The first incident would have been reprehensible if it had occurred and not been followed by the other two. However, the second incident occurred not only after the first incident had been discovered, but a year after the Applicant told the third reviewing panel that there would be no repetition. The third incident occurred after not only after the second incident had been uncovered but during the fitness to practise proceedings arising from the second incident.

28. In the judgement of the present Panel, there can only be one conclusion to be drawn from these incidents, which is that in the period 2013 to 2016, the Registrant had a comprehensive contempt for his professional regulator. The question the present Panel has had to grapple with is whether there can now be confidence that there has been a sea-change in his attitude, such that he is now, in late 2022, a person who could be relied upon to respect the obligations which are the price that must be paid to enjoy the advantages of professional regulation.

29. The Applicant has not persuaded the Panel that there has been such a change in his attitude. When asked why he would now act differently, the Applicant repeatedly stated that it was his religious faith that would prevent him from acting in a similar manner in the future. The Applicant stated in his written submissions to this Panel that he is, “ultimately accountable to Him [God]. Being an ambassador of Christ in my workplace implies I serve in love, truth and best”. The Panel does not question for a moment the genuineness of the Applicant’s expressions of his faith, nor does it doubt the importance to him of his belief in God. However, in the opinion of the Panel the Applicant has submitted a very limited reflective account, expressing some remorse, but without any evidence or other indication that he comprehends or accepts that he has committed repeated and serious misconduct. The Applicant’s demonstrable lack of insight concerning his dishonest actions and the consequences of this in regard to his integrity, the impact on his colleagues, the potential risks to service users, and the reputation of both his profession and regulator is a particularly serious matter. Additionally, the Panel has not been provided with testimonial accounts that would assist in evaluating the Applicant’s strength of character in respect of future conduct. The Panel, therefore, has no confidence that the Applicant possesses the commitment or capability to prevent a repetition of dishonest conduct.

30. The conclusion of the Panel is that the Registrant is not a fit and proper person to practise as a BMS. That is a sufficient reason for the application to be refused, but as the issue of the Applicant’s skills and knowledge was addressed in the application, the Panel will explain its conclusions on those issues.

Does the Applicant meet the general requirements for registration as a BMS?

31. The starting point of the Panel’s consideration was the requirement, contained in the relevant HCPTS Practice Note, to consider, “what steps the applicant has taken to keep his or her professional knowledge and skills up to date.”

32. The findings made in FTP02691 (which related to shortcomings identified in the period May 2005 to July 2008) concerned the Applicant’s competence in Bacteriology. As those fitness to practise proceedings progressed during the period when repeated conditions of practice orders were made, it was decided that, whatever the state of the Applicant’s theoretical knowledge, there had been insufficient opportunity for him to demonstrate that this academic knowledge could be successfully applied in a practical laboratory setting. Indeed, that was a comment made by the panel that undertook the fourth review, despite the fact that they did not order a continuation of conditions of practice (see the passages in bold in the quotations in paragraph 10 above). It is a fact that since those comments were made on 20 November 2015, the Applicant has still not had the opportunity (some seven years after those comments were made and many more years after the lack of competence was demonstrated) to apply the wider skills required in a laboratory setting. It was therefore relevant for the Panel to consider whether, at the present time, there was evidence of practical remediation of these issues.

33. In the Applicant’s statement, dated 17 November 2022, he provided evidence of the following Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities:

• Completed and awarded Master of Science (MSc) in Biomedical Science by University of Greenwich on 14 June 2019;

• MSc transcript, provided by University of Greenwich, detailing that the masters was provided online and the modules studied were Quality Systems Management, Clinical Data Interpretation, Robotics and Automation, Management of Healthcare Associated Infection, and Project between 2015 and 2019;

• Participation in ‘UK NEQAS Online Faecal Parasitology training day’ dated 6 July 2021;

• Membership with the Institute of Biomedical Science.

Subsequently, the Applicant submitted further evidence of CPD undertaken:
• An answer to a question on sterile fluids and tissues dated July 2018;

• COVID-19 training, at Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, which was countersigned between November 2020 and April 2022;

• Notes on Molecular testing (GeneXpert, LAMP and Maxwell Purification), dated 12 May 2021;

• Health and safety competency training at Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, dated 16 November 2021

• One paragraph regarding IQA discrepancy (molecular test) 21 September 2022.

34. Additionally, the Applicant provided an HCPC ‘Updating form' which was dated and signed by his supervisor at Hampshire Hospitals on 9 June 2022, which confirmed that the Applicant had undertaken 86 days of supervised practice days between 24 May 2021 and 22 October 2021 (although there was a lack of detail as to what competencies were supervised, and in evidence before the Panel the Applicant stated that the supervisor was unaware of the reason he was undertaking the supervised practice).

35. When questioned by the Panel, the Applicant stated that he had not kept records of his CPD during the past year. However, he had attended talks on COVID-19 testing, read journal articles regarding coronavirus, and there was a work WhatsApp group at Hampshire Hospitals for discussing issues and improvement ideas. The Applicant confirmed that his Masters’ project looked at improving a laboratory test (hydatid serology) and he was able to conduct his practical experiments in the Parasitology department at Health Services Laboratories during 2017.

36. Taking all these factors together, it is the Panel’s view that the Applicant has not taken sufficient steps to keep his professional skills up-to-date, for the following reasons:

• The Masters programme completed in 2019 (apart from the project) was not laboratory-based;

• The amount of learning-based activities in the past two years was insufficient to meet the minimum standards set out by the HCPC;

• There was a lack of depth, quality, and reflection in the CPD notes provided (Fluids, 2018, Molecular testing 2021, and IQA 2022).

37. In the judgement of the Panel, the Registrant does not meet the general requirements for registration as a BMS.

Conclusion

38. The conclusion of the Panel is that for the reasons explained, in particular the lack of confidence which the Panel has that the Applicant would comply with the personal and professional requirements of registration, the application for restoration must be refused.

The application for restoration to the Register is not granted.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Simeon Agbonkhina