Mr Shanthiratne Semage

Preliminary Matters
The hearing to be conducted partially in private

1. Ms Khorassani submitted that any references to the health of the Registrant or members of his family should be received in private. The Registrant supported that submission. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel directed that all references to the health of the Registrant or members of his family should be received in private, but that otherwise this was a public hearing.

Background (taken from the determination of the Substantive Panel)

2. The Registrant is a Biomedical Scientist registered with the HCPC. He was employed by Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) from 22 February 2005 until 23 November 2018.

3. The Registrant was initially employed by the Trust as a Trainee Biomedical Scientist. On 22 April 2008 he was promoted to the role of a Band 6 Advanced Biomedical Scientist within the Cervical Cytology Department. In this role, one of the Registrant’s responsibilities was to review and assess cervical cytology samples received by the Trust as part of the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme.

4. According to the National Guidelines for performance in Cervical Cytology, issued under the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (the National Guidelines), once a practitioner is qualified to undertake primary screening of cervical cytology samples, the accuracy of their assessments is monitored.

5. The National Guidelines set out that a practitioner should review a minimum of 3,000 slides per year. They state that primary screeners should, as a minimum, accurately detect 95% of samples that display high-grade abnormalities and 90% of all or low grade abnormalities. If a practitioner does not meet these criteria, they are considered to be ‘out of range.’

6. As part of the Quality Control system to monitor the accuracy of a primary screener’s assessments, all samples assessed are checked by a second Biomedical Scientist undertaking a rapid review. However, if a practitioner was deemed to be ‘out of range’, the Trust would then implement a ‘double screening’ process of the samples, meaning that a second Biomedical Scientist would assess the slide again from the perspective of a primary screener.

7. The Registrant’s line manager was IM, who was, at the relevant time, the Chief Biomedical Scientist at the Trust. He was the Registrant’s line manager from September 2011 until November 2018, save for a two- year period from 2012 to 2014 when IM was on secondment. In his role as the Registrant’s line manager, IM was responsible for conducting formal and informal one-to-one meetings with the Registrant.

8. In or around May 2017, as a result of the monitoring process to detect a practitioner’s accuracy levels, the Registrant was identified as being ‘out of range’ and concerns were raised in relation to his competence. Those concerns related to the accuracy of the cervical cytology primary screening conducted by the Registrant between March 2017 and October 2018. It is alleged that, between these dates, the Registrant did not consistently meet the National Guidelines for accuracy in relation to high grade and low (all) grade sensitivity slides. It is further alleged that between September 2017 and October 2018, the Registrant did not review the required number of cervical cytology samples in accordance with national guidelines.

9. On 31st May 2017, the Registrant was advised that the informal stage of performance management would begin. As part of the informal stage, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was drawn up. Objectives and support were set out in the PIP and included the stipulation that the Registrant’s review of slides was to be ‘double screened’. The PIP also set out an increased frequency of 1-1 meetings with the Registrant’s line manager.

10. The Trust was not satisfied that the Registrant achieved a sustained improvement, whilst on the informal stage of performance management and so on 14 November 2017, the Registrant was moved to stage 1 of the Trust’s formal Managing Performance Process. On 11 July 2018, the Registrant was moved to stage 2 of the Trust’s formal process. The Trust did not consider that the Registrant had successfully managed to address the concerns during the informal and formal periods of the performance management process. Consequently, the matter was referred to the HCPC on 7th December 2018.

Decision by the Substantive Panel made on 10 May 2021

11. Having determined the facts as set out above, the Substantive Panel proceeded to consider whether the Registrant’s failings as found proved, amounted to a lack of competence on his part and if so whether his fitness to practise was impaired.

12. The Substantive Panel determined that the matters found proved did amount to a lack of competence on the part of the Registrant. Its reasons, as stated in its determination are set out below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers in the determination have been retained and are shown in brackets.

(55)The Panel considered that cytology screening is a narrow field of a Biomedical Scientist’s work. Nevertheless, it took into account that the standards for a Biomedical Scientist appointed into that field are set by the national guidelines. The Panel considered that there were three elements to the question of whether or not the facts found proved amount to a lack of competence, namely:

1) Did the Panel have a fair sample of the Registrant’s work by which to assess his level of competence?

2) What would be the standards expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist?

3) Were the standards attained by the Registrant unacceptably low when measured against the standards of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist?

Question 1

(56) In relation to whether the evidence represented a fair sample of the Registrant’s work, the Panel considered the timeframe over which the alleged lack of competence occurred. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had not been permitted to review slides in October 2018, and so did not included this period in its assessment. Nevertheless, in terms of the annual requirement to review a minimum of 3,000 slides per year, the Panel considered that the Registrant had consistently fallen significantly below the required rate for period from October 2017 to September 2018, a period of around 11 months.

(57) In terms of the sensitivity rate of detecting high grade and all grade abnormalities, the Panel considered that the Registrant had consistently fallen significantly below the required percentages for the period from February 2018 to September 2018, a period of around eight months. The Panel considered that in respect of both time and quantity, the evidence represented a fair sample of the Registrant’s work.

Question 2

(58) The Panel bore in mind IM’s evidence that in practical terms, reviewing 3,000 slides in a year represented around two to three hours of work during the working day. Whilst the Panel accepted that there were other work responsibilities on the Registrant, it nevertheless considered that this was an achievable target for the Registrant, who had previously comfortably exceeded the minimum number of slides to review, including between February 2017 and August 2017. The Panel was, therefore satisfied that the national guidelines requiring an annual rate of reviewing 3,000 slides represented the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist.

(59) The Panel acknowledged that there was an element of subjectivity involved in reviewing a slide and assessing whether an abnormality was present. Nevertheless, it considered that this was taken into account by the national guidelines when setting the sensitivity levels for high and all grade abnormalities. Given the potential for harm for a patient, particularly if a high grade abnormality was not detected, the Panel was satisfied that achieving the percentages as set out in the national guidelines represented the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist.

Question 3

(60) The Panel had regard to the number of slides being reviewed by the Registrant when compared to the requirements set under the national guidelines. In October 2017, the Registrant’s annual rolling number of slides reviewed missed the requirement by over 400 slides. Between March 2018 and September 2018, the Registrant’s annual rolling number of slides reviewed missed the requirement by over 1,500 slides. In the Panel’s judgement, this rate was unacceptably low when compared against the standards expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist.

(61) The Panel had regard to the percentages of high grade and all grade abnormalities successfully detected by the Registrant. Between February and August 2017, the Registrant missed the 95% detection of high grade abnormalities by less that 1%, which the Panel accepted may represent a small number of the total slides reviewed. However, between March and September 2018, the Registrant c onsistently missed the 95% detection of high grade abnormalities by around 8% – 9%. In the Panel’s judgement, this rate was unacceptably low when compared against the standards expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist.

(62) The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had been provided with extensive support from IM in the form of regular supervision sessions. It acknowledged that the Registrant was working in a challenging and busy department and there were many additional demands on his time. However, for a significant period of time the Panel identified that the Registrant was not able to review the slides to the appropriate and safe standard to be expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist. In the Panel’s judgement, the evidence demonstrated that the Registrant did not have the ability to manage his own workload and resources effectively or manage his fitness to practise accordingly. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had breached standards 1.3, 3 and 3.3 of the Standards.

(63) In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had persistently fallen below the standards expected of a reasonably competent Biomedical Scientist, over a considerable period of time, and as judged against a fair sample of his work. As such, in the Panel’s judgement, the facts found proved amount to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s lack of competence is sufficiently serious to lead the Panel to a consideration of whether or not his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of that lack of competence.

13. The Substantive Panel further determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his lack of competence in respect of the matters that it had found proved. Its reasons, as stated in its determination, are set out below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers that appear in the determination of the Substantive Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.

(64) Having determined that the Registrant's actions amounted to lack of competence in respect of the charges found proved, the Panel went on to consider whether his fitness to practise was currently impaired as a consequence of that lack of competence.

(65) The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPC's Practice Note on impairment, and in particular the two aspects of impairment, namely the ‘personal component’ and the ‘public component’, based on the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin). The Panel was aware that consideration of impairment only arises in the event that the Panel judges that the facts found proved do amount to a lack of competence and that in determining current impairment, the consideration is to look forward from today.

(66) In relation to insight, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had some insight in that he recognised that he was not consistently achieving the required standards. However, the Panel considered that he did not understand the potential risk to patients and increased workload on colleagues, as he maintained that there was no actual risk of harm because the samples which he reviewed were double checked by another Biomedical Scientist who would pick up any oversight by the Registrant. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s insight into the risks of his failings was not sufficiently developed.

(67) In relation to remediation, the Panel firstly considered whether the Registrant’s lack of competence was capable of remediation. It was satisfied that there was no character flaw which may impede remediation. The position was that his skill level had fallen significantly below the required standards in the area of cytology, but the Panel was of the view that through training, refresher courses and regaining experience in the laboratory, the Registrant’s lack of competence was capable of remediation.

(68) The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had taken remedial action to address his lack of competence. He told the Panel that he had been reading monthly professional journals, including SCAN and IBMS. However, the Panel bore in mind that the Registrant had not worked in cytology since he had left the Trust in October 2018. It also noted that when the Registrant had undertaken the exercise of reviewing 400 training slides he had achieved the required standards, but had not been able to replicate this when reviewing actual slides. The Panel was not satisfied that in the absence of practical experience, for example shadowing a Biomedical Scientist in the laboratory, the academic reading which the Registrant had undertaken was sufficient to redress his lack of competence. Consequently, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had remediated his lack of competence.

(69) In the absence of fully developed insight and remediation, the Panel concluded that there remained a risk of repetition that the Registrant would not review the required annual number of slides or achieve the required level of sensitivities for high grade and all grade abnormalities both as set by the national guidelines. Although the Registrant had achieved the required standards in respect of the 400 training slides, the Panel was not confident that the Registrant could consistently achieve the required standards in respect of actual slides. In the Panel’s judgement, it was this unpredictability which led to a significant risk of harm to patients. His failure to consistently identify at least 95% of high grade and 90% of all grade abnormalities placed increased pressure on the second checker, which in turn meant a potential risk of harm to patients.

(70) In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public component.

(71) In relation to the public component, the Panel was of the view that members of the public need to have confidence that Biomedical Scientists screening cytology slides are competent to review them and appropriately detect high grade and low grade abnormalities. The Panel noted that the national screening programme has been implemented to deal with public health and it considered that public confidence would be damaged if practitioners assigned to screen slides were not competent to consistently detect abnormalities. The Panel concluded that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of current impairment were made in the particular circumstances of this case.

(72) Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public component.

14. The Substantive Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months. Its reasons as stated in its determination are set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

(73) Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of a lack of competence, the Panel next went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on his registration by way of the imposition of a sanction.

(74) The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Sheridan on behalf of the HCPC and those of the Registrant on his own behalf. Ms Sheridan did not invite the Panel to impose any specific Order, but took the Panel through the Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and identified what she submitted were the relevant factors the Panel should bear in mind in reaching its decision.

(75) The Registrant apologised to the Panel for his previous lack of insight into the situation, and said he now understood how his lack of competence had impacted upon colleagues. He said that he was planning to improve his practice and do a three day update course, without which he would be unable to return to practice. The Registrant explained that he had identified such a course that was available in Edinburgh or Manchester. He submitted that if he could improve his practice then that would improve safety for service users. The Registrant said that his understanding was that once he gained employment, he, like any newly appointed employee, would be put through a competency assessment process by his employer to prove that he could work safely at that level.

(76) The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and exercised its independent judgement. The Panel had regard to the Policy and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public. In this regard it bore in mind paragraph 10 of the Policy which states:

The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public. The considerations in this regard include:
• any risks the registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;
• the deterrent effect on other registrants;
• public confidence in the profession concerned; and
• public confidence in the regulatory process.

(77) The Panel first identified what it considered to be the principal mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.

Mitigating factors:

• The Registrant has engaged with these proceedings and has shown some insight in accepting that he did not meet the required standards and needs to improve his practice with training and refresher courses;
• There is no previous fitness to practise history.

Aggravating factors:

• The failings were serious in that there was a repetition and pattern of underperformance which persisted over a considerable period of time;
• There was a potential risk of harm to patients due to the inconsistency of the Registrant’s ability to detect abnormalities, and the second checker was relied upon to pick up what the Registrant may not have detected.

(78) The Panel considered the sanctions available beginning with the least serious. It did not consider the options of taking no further action, mediation or a Caution Order to be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of this case. The Panel was of the view that none of these options would be sufficient to protect the public or meet the wider public interest, given that it had identified a risk of repetition in both not meeting the national minimum guidelines for reviewing slides and not consistently detecting abnormalities. The Panel considered that this risk of repetition led to a consequent significant risk of harm to patients.

(79) The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel, in its findings on impairment, had considered that the practice concerns were capable of remediation, but that the Registrant had not yet remedied his practice at this time, having not worked in the field of cytology since 2018. Whilst he had attempted to keep up to date with informal CPD in reading professional journals, the Panel did not consider that this was sufficient. It appeared to the Panel that the Registrant had struggled to remediate pending the fitness to practise proceedings, and his remediation was dependent upon him successfully completing the three day cytology refresher course first.

(80) Having heard from the Registrant during the course of the proceedings, the Panel considered that he was genuinely committed to resolving the failings in his practice and had indicated a willingness to undertake refresher courses and training in order to do so. The Panel considered that it would be possible to formulate workable and measurable conditions to enable the Registrant to return to practice and take the necessary remediation steps in order to regain his fitness to practise.

(81) In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient to protect the public and satisfy the public interest, while at the same time supporting the Registrant in remedying his fitness to practise.

(82) The Panel considered that the length of the order should be for a period of 18 months. Given that the Registrant had been out of the field for a considerable amount of time, the Panel was of the view that 18 months would provide him with the time to successfully complete the three day refresher course to allow him to re-enter the field; to secure a relevant post; and to work meaningfully under the conditions.

(83) In order to satisfy itself that a Conditions of Practice Order was the appropriate and proportionate response, the Panel looked at the next level of sanction possible namely a Suspension Order. It had regard to the Registrant’s good level of engagement with these proceedings, his lack of previous fitness to practise history, and his willingness to remedy his failings. The Panel decided that suspension would be wholly disproportionate and unduly punitive, in that it would significantly impede the Registrant from remediating his practice.
(84) Accordingly, the Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months.

The Conditions of Practice imposed by the Substantive Panel

15. The Conditions of Practice Order was in the following terms;

The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that for 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (the Operative Date), Mr Shanthiratne Semage must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1) Before undertaking any work as a Biomedical Scientist in the field of cytology you must:

A. satisfactorily complete the three day cytology refresher course; and

B. within 14 days of satisfactorily completing the course, forward confirmation of your results to the HCPC.

2) Before undertaking any work as a Biomedical Scientist in the field of cytology, you must:

A. satisfactorily complete the training and competency programme of the organisation for whom you are working for; and

B. within 14 days of satisfactorily completing the programme, forward confirmation of your results to the HCPC.

3) Upon commencement of employment in the field of cytology, you must place yourself and remain under the supervision of an HCPC registered workplace supervisor of a minimum of Band 7 and supply details of your workplace supervisor to the HCPC within three months of commencing employment. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

4) Prior to any review, you must obtain and send to the HCPC a report from your workplace supervisor commenting on your practice as a Biomedical Scientist in the field of cytology. The report should include information regarding your ability to meet the national guidelines for high grade and all grade sensitivities and minimum annual numbers of cytology slides reviewed.

5) You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment.

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 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).

8) You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

The Hearing on 14 November 2022 before the Panel [the first review panel]

16. Ms Khorassani made submissions. In summary, her submissions were as follows;

• the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on both the personal and the public components.

• The Registrant had not worked as a Biomedical Scientist for 3 and 1/2 years and had not done any of the courses or training specified in the Conditions of Practice Order. He had not in any way remediated his clinical failings. Accordingly, there was a real risk of harm to patients: Also, public confidence in the HCPC and in the profession would be undermined, if there was to be a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired

• In all the circumstances and despite engagement on the part of the Registrant, there is no sufficient change in the underlying factors that would justify a departure from the previous decision that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and the public components.

• The appropriate order for the Panel to make, was an extension of the current Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months.

Submissions by the Registrant

17. The Panel has seen a written submission from the Registrant which is contained in an email dated 10 November 2022 from him to the HCPC. That email is in the following terms;

“Notice of Review of Conditions of Practice Order Hearing
1 During the Covid pandemic my wife was shielding at home that period I was unable to go to any work risking her life due to infections.
2. [redacted]
3 Since last year I have applied few vacancies but didn’t short listed.
4. I have studied Gateway Qualifications Level 2 Certificate in IT User Skills (ITQ)
This course is very important for when doing Cervical Cytology HPV quality control live programme and monthly statistics preparing graphs and charts, presentations and teaching sessions.
Presently I am studying ICT Level 3 course until end of January 2023.
During my spare time I used to read medical journals and reading books.
Actively participating temple religious programmes in every Saturday evening
I am very sorry I couldn't keep the HCPC standard of conduct during the allegation period.
I would like to accompany my wife [ name redacted] for virtual meeting just to accompany with me.
Yours Truly
S Shanthiratne”

18. In addition the Registrant gave evidence and made oral submissions to the Panel. In summary he said as follows;

• That he wanted to resume a career as a Biomedical Scientist.

• He contemplated working in the field of biochemistry and haematology. He did not wish to work in the field of cytology.

• He was prepared to commence work as a Band 5 Biomedical Scientist.

• He acknowledged that he had done no work as a Biomedical Scientist for 3 and 1/2 years and during that period had not been able to do any work to maintain his professional skills or remediate his failings.

• He told the Panel that he had qualified as a Biomedical Scientist in Sri Lanka. The date of his qualification was 1988.

• He said that he had come to the UK in 2002. Since then he had done 2 days of work in a NHS laboratory with regard to haematology and biochemistry but that otherwise his experience was limited to work in the field of cytology.

• He felt that with appropriate training and proper supervision he would be able to work in the fields of haematology and biochemistry.

• [redacted]

Decision of the Panel on 14 November 2022

19. The Panel has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its function was to conduct a comprehensive review in order to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. He advised that in carrying out this assessment, and, if relevant, in determining the appropriate sanction to impose, the Panel must apply the principle of proportionality. He reminded the Panel that in this case all the sanctions, other than a striking off order, were available to the Panel and should be considered in ascending order of restriction. He advised that the Panel should consider the document entitled “Sanctions Policy” [SP] published by the HCPC in March 2019.

20. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

21. The Panel has had regard to the HCPTS’s Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment and to the SP.

22. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel has carried out a comprehensive review. It has considered the submissions that it has heard and all the material that has been placed before it.

23. The Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, on both the personal and the public components. Its reasons are as follows;

• The Registrant has not worked as a Biomedical Scientist for 3 and 1/2 years and has not done anything to maintain or develop his professional skills or to remediate his failings as found proved by the Substantive Panel.

• The Registrant has not complied with any of the requirements contained in conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Order imposed on 10 May 2021.

• The Registrant has not advanced any substantive argument as to why the Panel should not find that his fitness to practise remains impaired.

• There is no sufficient change in the underlying factors, which would justify a conclusion that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

• For all the reasons set out above the Registrant continues to pose a risk to patients and service users and an Order is necessary to protect the public.

• A well informed member of the public would not understand, if given all the matters set out above, the Panel was to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not now impaired.

24. Having concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel considered what sanction would be appropriate and proportionate in order to address the risks that it has identified. In doing so, it considered the guidance given in the SP. It has concluded that the necessary and proportionate order is a varied Conditions of Practice Order for a further period of 12 months. Its reasons are as follows;

• To take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not impose any restriction on the Registrant’s ability to practise. Such an outcome would not protect the public or address the public interest and would be wholly inappropriate.

• A Conditions of Practice Order appropriately varied, would give the Registrant an opportunity to develop the skills necessary to enable him to practise safely and effectively as a Biomedical Scientist.

• At this stage it would be disproportionate to suspend the Registrant. A Suspension Order would probably remove any chance of the Registrant being able to resume his career as a Biomedical Scientist.

• Extending the Conditions of Practice Order for 12 months would give the Registrant sufficient time to identify appropriate training courses and perhaps to obtain an offer of employment as a Biomedical Scientist.

25. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant did not fully appreciate the difficulties that stood in the way of his practising safely and effectively as a Biomedical Scientist. The Panel was conscious that the Registrant’s experience of working in the fields of haematology and biochemistry was limited to working 2 days in a NHS laboratory in 2004. He has not worked as a Biomedical Scientist for 3 and 1/2 years. In reality, the Registrant will probably need to undergo a course of pre- registration training before being accepted by an employer to work as a Band 5 Biomedical Scientist. The Panel was aware that such was the likely impact of the variations to the Conditions of Practice Order that it has imposed. The Registrant should be aware that when the Order is next reviewed, the reviewing panel will wish to see the progress that the Registrant has made in meeting the conditions of the Conditions of Practice Order. A Striking Off Order will probably be available to the reviewing panel.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to vary the Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Mr Shanthiratne Semage for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order. The Conditions are:

1) As a Biomedical Scientist you must work for only one substantive employer, that must not be an Agency.

2) Upon commencement of employment as a Biomedical Scientist, you must:

A. satisfactorily complete the training and competency programme of the organisation for whom you are working for, and in the discipline for which you are employed and appropriate to a Band 5 Biomedical Scientist;

B. within 14 days of satisfactorily completing the programme, forward confirmation of your results to the HCPC.

3) Upon commencement of any employment as a Biomedical Scientist, you must place yourself and remain under the supervision of an HCPC registered workplace supervisor of a minimum of Band 7 and supply details of your workplace supervisor to the HCPC within three months of commencing employment. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

4) Prior to any review, you must obtain and send to the HCPC a report from your workplace supervisor commenting on your practice as a Biomedical Scientist.

5) You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment as a Biomedical Scientist.

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 with you to undertake professional work;

B. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

8) You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

The Order imposed today will apply from 07 December 2022.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 07 December 2023.

History of Hearings for Mr Shanthiratne Semage