Mr Arkadiusz Bodziany
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 email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegations as proven at the final hearing
Whilst registered as a Paramedic with the Health and Care Professions Council and employed at East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, you:
1. Between May 2017 and January 2018, attended to patients and there were occasions when you did not:
a) undertake a detailed assessment and/or full patient history;
b) recognise signs and symptoms in patients;
c) recognise time critical patients;
d) demonstrate the ability to act as lead clinician;
e) treat patients appropriately;
f) [Not Proven]
g) identify differential diagnosis;
h) [Not Proven]
i) know the different referral pathways for patients.
2. On 13 November 2017, at an assessment day:
a) In relation to an adult ALS scenario:
i. Did not undertake a scene safety assessment;
ii. Did not adequately manage the patient’s airway;
iii. Did not establish the patient was in cardiac arrest;
iv. Did not identify reversible causes;
v. Did not use capnography adequately.
b) In relation to a conscious patient scenario (tension pneumothorax):
i. Did not undertake a scene safety assessment;
ii. Did not identify a time critical patient;
iii. Did not diagnose the patient;
iv. Did not provide adequate treatment to the patient;
v. Did not pre-alert casualty.
c) In relation to a paediatric cardiac arrest scenario:
i. Did not undertake a scene safety assessment;
ii. Stayed present on the scene for too long;
iii. Did not take a BM reading;
iv. Did not adequately consider reversible causes.
d) In relation to a second Advanced Life Support scenario:
i. Did not adequately use capnography;
ii. Moved the patient;
iii. Did not recognise ECG changes;
iv. Did not understand the concept of reciprocal changes;
v. Did not give adrenaline when it was clinically indicated;
vi. Did not provide an adequate handover;
vii. Did not recognise this as a time critical patient;
viii. Did not manage pain adequately.
e) Did not know the answers for:
i. Normal values of a healthy adult;
ii. Oxygen saturations for COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorders) patient;
iii. A&P (Anatomy and Physiology) of the heart;
iv. Sympathetic or parasympathetic responses
f) Did not know how to label the heart during the assessment.
3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 to 2 constitute lack of competence.
4. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
1.Evidence was provided to the Panel that Notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant to his registered address on 16 December 2021. The Panel accepted that this evidence met the requirement of the rules that require the Registrant to be notified and deemed that good service had been effected.
Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant
2.The Panel took into account the HCPC application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and the legal advice provided. It found the following factors to be relevant:
a.The Registrant had not appeared for his substantive fitness to practise hearing;
b.The Registrant had not responded to the Notice of the hearing or the pre-hearing letter sent to him on 18 January 2022 to remind him of the evidence that it would be helpful for a reviewing Panel and to indicate his future intentions as regards practicing as a paramedic;
c.The Registrant had not indicated a reason for his absence;
d.The Registrant had not asked for an adjournment;
e.There is no indication that an adjournment would serve any useful purpose and secure the Registrant’s attendance on a future occasion.
3.Given the nature and circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s absence is voluntary and that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
4.The Registrant was a registered Paramedic at all relevant times.
5.The Registrant was employed by the East Midlands Ambulance Service Foundation Trust (‘EMAS’) between 27 March 2017 and January 2018. The Registrant had qualified as a paramedic in Poland some ten years earlier. In the intervening period he had been a resident in the UK and living in the Merseyside area. He had been working as a driver and had not used his paramedic qualification in the UK or elsewhere in the previous ten years.
6.The Registrant underwent the six-week International Paramedic Course to transfer/convert his Polish qualification in order to obtain registration from the HCPC.
7.Upon commencing as a paramedic in the EMAS the Registrant was treated as a fully qualified paramedic but was required to undergo a probationary period. During the course of his employment, it became clear that the Registrant did not have the knowledge or experience to carry out his duties. He also lacked confidence and was unable to take the lead, as a paramedical professional should be able to do, when attending incidents. The Registrant spent time with a number of mentors and as a supernumerary with a number of paramedics.
8.Serious concerns were raised as to his competence and his ability to treat patients. The Registrant undertook a performance assessment from which it became clear that his competence fell considerable below what is required of a paramedic.
9.Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC submitted that in the absence of any information from the Registrant there is nothing to indicate that the position has changed since the substantive Suspension Order was imposed. There is an absence of evidence that any of the deficiencies have been addressed sufficiently. She reminded the Panel that the Registrant was found by the panel at the substantive hearing to have inadequate competence to be able to practice safely at the lowest level at which a registered paramedic can operate. Accordingly, she indicated that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired and the Suspension Order needed to be extended, both to protect service users and in the public interest.
10.The Legal Assessor commended to the Panel the HCPTS Practise Note on Review of Article 30 Orders and took the Panel to the relevant principles and its powers contained therein. The Panel accepted this advice in making its decision.
11.The Panel bore in mind the substantive hearing decision notwithstanding that this is a fresh review, and did not go behind the facts proved. The Panel did consider the matters which led to the finding of impairment and the basis for the sanction imposed. It considered that in the absence of any information at all from the Registrant it is not able to give the Registrant credit for:
•any acceptance or insight into the matters found at the substantive fitness to practise hearing;
•resolving those matters, or indicating a willingness and ability to do so;
•any remedial or rehabilitative steps taken;
•any steps taken to keep professional knowledge and skills up to date.
12.The Panel further noted that the Registrant has not provided any of the material that the panel at the substantive hearing had indicated would be helpful to put before a reviewing panel. In these circumstances, the Panel was of the view that it could not find that any of the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment have been sufficiently addressed. It was alive to the persuasive burden on the registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that they have fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement, and conscious that this had not been done.
13.Accordingly, given the number of deficiencies that had been found as facts proved in the substantive hearing, without an indication that this lack of competence has improved, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant remained impaired and this was both made out on public protection and public interest grounds.
14.The Panel understood that it might confirm the existing order, extend its duration, reduce it, replace it with an alternative order or revoke it. In the absence of any significant or material change in circumstance since the original order was made, the Panel was of the view that no lesser order would provide patient protection. The extent of lack of competence required a restriction on the Registrant’s practice. However, conditions of practice would not be workable because the Registrant has not engaged or demonstrated insight or remediation.
15.The Panel applied the principle of proportionality striking a fair balance between interfering with the registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection. However, in light of the decision made at the substantive hearing that there was a real risk to the public if the Registrant was permitted to practise, and in the absence of any information to indicate a change in circumstances, it was of the view that no other order was sufficient to meet either the need for public protection or the public interest.
16.Given the number of deficiencies and no evidence of engagement, insight and remediation. The Panel was of the view that the current order should be extended for a further period of 12 months so as to allow the Registrant with sufficient opportunity to provide the following:
a)the Registrant’s engagement by either attending a future review hearing in person or remotely or by making written submissions to the reviewing panel;
b)An up-to-date indication as to the Registrant’s future intentions and whether he wishes to remain in the Paramedic profession;
c)a reflective piece by the Registrant setting out what went wrong and any measures he had taken or intends to take to remediate his practice.
The Registrar is directed to extend the current order for a further period for 12 months.
No notes available
History of Hearings for Mr Arkadiusz Bodziany
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|02/02/2022||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|01/02/2021||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|