Mr Adrian Patrick

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing, specifying the hearing dates, 5-8 September 2023, had been sent to the Registrant at his registered email address with the HCPC on 4 July 2023.

2. The Notice of Hearing contained information relating to the format and nature of the hearing. The HCPC received notification on 4 July 2023 that “delivery” of the email was “complete”. The Panel was satisfied that proper and reasonable notice of today’s hearing had been served on the Registrant in accordance with the rules.

Proceeding in absence

3. The Panel next considered proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. It noted that it has the power to do so under Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules (“the Rules”) if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant. The Panel must also consider all the circumstances of the case, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.

4. The Panel had already satisfied itself that service of the Notice of Hearing had been effected in accordance with the Rules.

5. The Panel was aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with care and caution. It noted the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant that the discretion whether to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, but balanced with fairness to the HCPC and to the public interest.

6. In reaching its decision, the Panel has noted that: there was no application for an adjournment; even if the hearing was adjourned to allow the Registrant to attend, this would not necessarily guarantee his attendance in the future.

7. The Panel also noted that the Registrant has failed to engage with the HCPC since 29 September 2022 and there are witnesses available to give evidence to the Panel.

8. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily chosen to absent himself. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background
9. The Registrant is a registered Biomedical Scientist who was previously employed by Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust (“the Trust”) within the Microbiology, Virology, Serology (“VSM”) and Molecular Clinical Microbiology Department (“the department”). The Registrant began working for the Trust in 1998.

10. From 2 December 2019, the Registrant was working in the Serology section of the department, where he was the Specialist Biomedical Scientist with responsibility for supervising serology testing, which meant that he was responsible for interpreting serology results and authorising reports in line with serology algorithms and Standard Operating Procedures.

11. A core part of the Registrant’s role was the interpretation of test results and specific test results including Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Testing (“HBsAg”) using, at that time, a Centaur XPT analyser to perform the tests.

12. The Registrant had received detailed training from the Trust and had been provided with the relevant Standard Operating Procedures in relation to the operation of analysis machinery, how to carry out analysis and what to do when specific samples require further analysis.

13. The process for completing HBsAg testing was, in summary, for serum samples to be loaded into an analyser that had already been loaded with the correct assay kit which tested for a specific antigen that is looked for when these tests are carried out. The Centaur would then process the sample and provide a negative, positive, reactive or indeterminate result. If the result was negative, the Biomedical Scientist would, unless there were any other concerns, authorise the report. Equally, if the result was positive, and related to a patient known to be positive for the HBsAg then they would also authorise the result. However, if there were any concerns about a sample, if it was reactive or insufficient or if there was a positive result for a new patient not known to be positive for that antigen, the sample would be added to an authorisation queue for consideration, review and authorisation by a Duty Virologist.

14. On 21 July 2020, Witness 1, the Band 8a Deputy Service Manager for the Registrant’s department, was informed of concerns that her colleague, a Consultant Clinical Scientist, within the department had about the wording of a result for a HBsAg test carried out by the Registrant. The wording was “insufficient sample to confirm the HBsAg result.”

15. It is alleged that the Registrant had failed to document whether there had been any HBsAg reactivity in the sample, when he should have done. It is alleged that the Registrant should, having noted that the sample size had been insufficient, have flagged this with the Duty Virologist by adding a code on the Trust’s internal reporting system. Escalation of the result was required to ensure that a further sample was obtained from the patient to avoid any delay in diagnosis or treatment. The Duty Virologist was concerned that the Registrant stated, “I was trying to remind people to send sufficient samples for the test they are requesting, rather than continually asking for a repeat sample”. This was noted in the Winpath audit trail.

16. After conducting an initial review of the concerns that had been raised, Witness 1 determined that the concerns needed to be investigated fully by someone outside the department. Witness 2, Deputy Service Manager for Clinical Pathology within the Trust, was therefore appointed to conduct that investigation.

17. Witness 2 had an investigation meeting with the Registrant on 17 August 2020. During the course of that meeting the Registrant confirmed his understanding of the process for completing HBsAG testing and the need to ensure rejected results were escalated to a senior colleague. The Registrant was unable to explain why he had failed to follow the correct procedure. The Registrant assured Witness 2 that he had completed a period of self-reflection in relation to the incident and that he would ensure to escalate any such test results in the future in accordance with Trust policy and guidance.

18. The Registrant did offer some reasons as to why he may have made the error and suggested that his heavy workload may have led to the error. He suggested that this was a broader concern within the department leading to an increase in errors. He also suggested that there was an inconsistent approach to reporting samples that couldn’t be processed because they were insufficient in volume.

19. Witness 2 stated that both of these claims were further investigated by him and he found that there had not been an increase in reported errors during the relevant time period nor had understaffing been identified as the contributory factor to the cause of errors that had been identified.

20. Witness 2 also stated that there appeared to have been a very consistent approach within the department to the reporting of samples that couldn’t be processed because they were insufficient in volume.

21. On 6 September 2020, Witness 2 concluded his investigation and recommended that the concerns regarding the Registrant’s actions be referred for a disciplinary panel hearing. However, a hearing did not take place as the Registrant agreed, in email correspondence with the Trust on 15 January 2021 to accept the allegations made against him. As a result, a written warning was issued. The Registrant subsequently retired from the Trust on 1 February 2021.

22. The Panel heard from two witnesses on behalf of the HCPC. Witness 1 who is the Deputy Service Manager of the Microbiology, Virology, Serology and Molecular Clinical Microbiology Department and Witness 2 who is the Deputy Service Manager of Clinical Pathology who also carried out the investigation.

Decision on Facts
Witness 1:

23. The Panel heard from Witness 1. Witness 1 confirmed her witness statement dated 16 March 2023 was true to the best of her knowledge and belief.

24. Witness 1 told the Panel that the Registrant was a Higher Specialist Biomedical Scientist and explained to the Panel what the nature of the Registrant’s role was.

25. Witness 1 provided the Panel with an overview of the training that the Registrant had received from the Trust in relation to the operation of the analysis machinery, how to carry out analysis and what to do when specific samples require further analysis.

26. Witness 1 told the Panel that the initial concern was raised by a Consultant Clinical Scientist at the Trust who sent an email to Witness 1 on 21 July 2020 and advised that when reviewing a serology result for authorisation she had noticed a comment from the Registrant that she felt was inappropriately worded. When investigating the matter further the Consultant noted that the Registrant had failed to document whether there had been any HBsAg reactivity in a sample, when he should have done.

27. Witness 1 referred the Panel to a screen shot dated 21 July 2020 on Winpath, which is the Trust laboratory reporting system. This document noted that the Registrant had inserted a dot on three separate lines of one sample, where he should have inserted a numerical value indicating a reactive result. Witness 1 stated that this was unusual as normally when there is a reactive result, it is escalated to the duty virologist who would discuss what measures can be put into place whilst further testing is done.

28. Witness 1 further referred the Panel to a “back of form” document and explained that this is an internal notebook facility. Witness 1 referred the Panel to the exchange between the Registrant and the Consultant where the Consultant notes that no HBsAg was documented by the Registrant as it should have been.

29. Witness 1 explained to the Panel what the consequences of the Registrants failure were, namely that this could have led to delays in diagnosis or treatment of the patient.

30. In response to Panel questions, Witness 1 told the Panel that the numerical value 1.21 noted on the back of form document was the reactivity result that the Registrant should have recorded on the Winpath document.

31. In response to further Panel questions, Witness 1 confirmed that the Standard Operating Procedures in relation to the operation of analysis machinery have been updated since the time of the incident and confirmed this was as a result of a corrective action by the laboratory to provide clearer instruction.

32. Witness 1 also confirmed in response to Panel questions that had the Registrant followed the appropriate procedures, a further sample would still have been required from Service User A.

Witness 2:

33. The Witness confirmed that the contents of his statement dated 31 March 2023 were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Witness 2 provided the Panel with details regarding his professional qualifications and experience.

34. Witness 2 told the Panel that he received a request to conduct an investigation in relation to the concerns that had been raised in relation to the Registrant. Witness 2 told the Panel that he initially organised a meeting with the Registrant to put forward the allegation and to consider the Registrants position in relation to the concerns.

35. Witness 2 advised the Panel that he ascertained that the sample referred to had not been recorded correctly or escalated appropriately. During the investigation Witness 2 asked the Registrant to explain the process he would normally follow to ensure he had the requisite knowledge and he concluded that the Registrant did have the relevant knowledge. Witness 2 told the Panel that the Registrant had stated during the investigation that he was unable to explain why he had failed to follow proper procedure as he had followed it in the past.

36. Witness 2 told the Panel that as part of the investigation, he considered environmental impacts which can cause distractions. He also queried whether the Registrant felt that he was able to escalate concerns to senior staff and the Registrant advised that he felt that he could but that he did not think his concerns would be escalated.

37. Witness 2 explained to the Panel the steps which he took to investigate the issues raised by the Registrant in relation to workload and the varied approach within the department to sampling. Witness 2 advised that his investigation concluded that there were no concerns regarding either issue which would have had an impact on the Registrant’s ability to carry out proper procedures.

38. In response to Panel questions, Witness 2 advised that he was not aware that the Standard Operating Procedures had been changed since the time of the incident.

39. He told the Panel that he took the decision to refer to the Registrant to the HCPC as he had been advised that the Registrant had retired, and he felt it was his duty to notify the HCPC of the concerns which had been raised.

40. In response to Panel questions Witness 2 told the Panel that as part of his investigation he queried whether there were Senior members of staff available at the time of the incident which would allow the Registrant to escalate his concern. Witness 2 advised that Witness 1 had informed him that there is always a Senior member available to respond in such situations.

41. In response to further Panel questions, Witness 2 confirmed that during his investigation he was not provided with any direct evidence that as a result of the Registrant’s actions there was a delay in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient.

42. When asked by the Panel about why the Registrant failed to record and properly escalate, Witness 2 stated it was difficult to say. It may have been sleep deprivation, inability to concentrate at the time, or distractions that caused the failure.

43. He further confirmed that he found that there was no intent by the Registrant to incorrectly record the sample and mislead the clinical team. He confirmed that the Registrant was issued with a written warning from the Trust on 8 January 2021.

Submissions for the HCPC

44. The Presenting Officer, Mr Moran submitted that the Panel should find particulars 1 and 2 proved. He referred the Panel to the oral evidence provided by each witness and the accompanying documentary evidence. Mr Moran also referred the Panel to the Case Summary provided on behalf of the HCPC which sets out the case against the Registrant.

Legal Advice

45. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to assess all the evidence on the balance of probabilities, the onus of proof resting upon the HCPC. It should consider all the oral and documentary evidence and must only find a fact proved if they consider it more likely than not to have occurred.

Decision on Facts

Particular 1- Proved

46. In reaching this decision, the Panel considered all the oral and documentary evidence. The Panel took account of the statement of Witness 1 at paragraphs 27-33 and the accompanying Exhibits SAF1-10. The Panel also took account of the statement of Witness 2 paragraphs 16-30 and the accompanying exhibits MS1-MS24.

47. The Panel had specific regard to Exhibit SAF7 which contained the Serology results where it is noted that the Registrant inserted three dots instead of inserting a reactive result, on one sample.

48. The Panel noted the Registrant acknowledged in his interview with Witness 2 that he did not know why he had not followed proper procedure.

49. In all the circumstances, the Panel found particular 1 proved.

Particular 2- Proved

50. In reaching this decision, the Panel considered all the oral and documentary evidence. The Panel took account of the statement of Witness 1 paragraphs 27-33 and the accompanying Exhibits SAF1-10. The Panel also took account of the statement of Witness 2 paragraphs 16-30 and the accompanying Exhibits MS1-MS24.

51. The Panel noted that the concern was initially raised by the Consultant Clinical Scientist when she was reviewing a serology result for authorisation.

52. When considering this particular, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had inserted some notes on the “back of form”, exhibit SAF10. The Panel noted that this was an accepted practice and way of communicating internally within the Serology department. However, the Panel concluded that the Registrant did not follow the appropriate procedures as he did not communicate in an effective manner to raise the concern relating to insufficient sample volumes.

53. In all the circumstances, the Panel found particular 2 proved.

Decision on Grounds
54. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct, as alleged in particular 3 of the Allegation.

55. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

56. The Panel was mindful that this was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.

57. The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 as:

“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls
short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of
propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards
ordinarily required to be followed by a (medical) practitioner in the
particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’…Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’.”

58. The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016). It found that the Registrant breached standards 2.6, 6.2, and 10.1: -

Work with Colleagues
2.6 You must share relevant information, where appropriate, with colleagues involved in the care, treatment or other services provided to a service user

Identify and minimise risk
6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk

Keep accurate records
10.1 You must keep full, clear, and accurate records for everyone you care for, treat, or provide other services to.

59. The fact that there were breaches of the identified standards was a relevant but not determinative factor in determining whether misconduct had been established. However, when the Panel considered whether their findings represented conduct that fell well below the standard to which the Registrant was able to practise and should have been practising, it concluded that it did.

60. The Panel considered whether it was appropriate to aggregate all of the proven allegations for the decision to be made in relation to misconduct and determined it was appropriate.

61. In relation to particular 1, the Panel noted that the concerns came to light when the Consultant Clinical Scientist was reviewing a serology result for authorisation. The Registrant did not follow the appropriate Standard Operating Procedures for correctly recording the identification of a reactive Hepatitis Antigen Surface result for Service User A. The Registrant inserted three dots instead of a numerical reactive result. This meant that there was not a correct record of the patients results. Although recorded on the internal laboratory system, it was not visible to the patients record.

62. In relation to particular 2, the Panel found that the Registrant did not follow the Standard Operating Procedures. The Registrant did not communicate in an effective manner to raise the concern relating to insufficient sample volumes. The Panel considered he should have raised the lack of adequate sample volume to the duty Virologist or to a senior member of staff. The Panel acknowledged that there was no direct evidence of a delay in the diagnosis or treatment of Service User A. However, the Panel determined that there was a potential risk as a result of the Registrant’s conduct.

63. The evidence received by the Panel was that the Registrant is a well-qualified and experienced Biomedical Scientist of more than 20 years’ service. The Registrant had received appropriate training from the Trust in relation to the operation of the analysis machinery, how to carry out analysis and what to do when specific samples require further analysis.

64. In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrants conduct fell short of the standards to be expected of him and thereby the Panel found misconduct to be established.

Decision on Impairment
65. The Panel next considered the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise. The Panel gave careful consideration to the submissions on behalf of the HCPC.

66. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and to the authoritative guidance in CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin).

67. The issue of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, and it required the Panel to consider the central issues of insight, remediation and the risk of repetition. The Panel looked to past conduct and to the future in assessing the risk of repetition. The Panel kept at the forefront of its mind the fundamental considerations and overarching objectives of protecting the public and the wider public interest, including the reputation of, and public confidence in, the profession.

68. The Panel determined that the first three limbs of the Grant test were engaged:

Do our findings of fact, in respect of the doctors, or in this case, the nurse's misconduct show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he has,
(a) Has the Registrant in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm.
(b) has the Registrant in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
(c) Has the Registrant in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

69. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice, including any evidence of insight and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour on the part of registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

70. With regards to the “personal” component, the Panel noted that the Registrant has retired from the Trust. However, it also noted that the Registrant remained active on the HCPC register at the time the referral was made.

71. In relation to the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel found that there was some insight, as the Registrant had recognised and accepted the concerns. However, the Panel noted that the Registrant told Witness 2 that he did not know why he had failed to follow the Standard Operating Procedures and could not explain why he had not done so. There was some reference in the written documentation to health matters, but this was not confirmed. Furthermore, the Registrant has not provided any evidence to the Panel or engaged with the proceedings to demonstrate further insight. Therefore, the Panel concluded that on the evidence available, the Registrant’s insight was limited.

72. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant told Witness 2 that he had completed a period of self-reflection in relation to the incident. However, there was no evidence of the Registrant’s reflection before the Panel. The Panel further noted that there was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has taken steps to address the concerns. The Panel therefore found taking the circumstances as a whole, that there was a risk of repetition. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

73. In respect of the public component and the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct whilst serious, involved a single and isolated incident.

74. The Panel noted that the Registrant is a well-qualified and experienced Biomedical Scientist of more than 20 years’ service who had received appropriate training from the Trust. The Registrant has a duty to protect service users and the Panel determined that the Registrant had demonstrated limited insight in relation to his misconduct. The Panel determined that his conduct fell well short of the standards to be expected of him.

75. The Panel next considered the important public interest considerations, that is the public component of fitness to practise. It was mindful of the advice in the Grant case which states :-

“71...it is essential, when deciding whether fitness to practise is impaired, not to lose sight of the fundamental considerations ….. namely the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession…In determining whether a practitioner's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.”

76. In Grant the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) is referred to and approved. This states:-

“[62] Any approach to the issue of whether a doctor’s fitness to practise
should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence [in the] profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour of the public in their doctors and that public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence…”

77. The Panel was mindful of its findings, that there was a potential risk to patient safety as a result of the Registrant’s conduct. The Panel determined that their findings are serious and such a finding of misconduct has an impact on the public and on public confidence in the profession.

78. The Panel concluded, with the guidance in Grant in mind, that in the circumstances of this case given the nature of the misconduct, that not to make a finding of current impairment would undermine public confidence in the profession, and in the regulator. It would also fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards.

79. The Panel accordingly found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired on the public and personal components.

Decision on Sanction
80. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Moran made submissions concerning the proper approach to the sanction consideration and invited the Panel to have regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. He outlined the aggravated and mitigating factors relevant to the case.

81. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor on the proper approach to the imposition of a sanction. Accordingly, the Panel accepted a sanction is not to be imposed to punish, but rather should be the least restrictive outcome consistent with the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the Biomedical Science profession and the regulation of it.

82. The Panel identified what it considered to be the principle mitigating and aggravating factors in this case. The mitigating factors identified are:-

• It was a single and isolated incident relating to one service user.
• The Registrant engaged with the Trust investigation and there was an early acceptance of the concerns.
• There was some insight in that the Registrant provided assistance in drafting updated Standard Operating Procedures.
• The Registrant’s manager had no concerns about the Registrant’s conduct or practice prior to the concerns.
• Approximately 20 years’ service with no regulatory concerns before or since.

83. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• Limited engagement with the fitness to practice process, therefore the Panel were unable to assess the Registrant’s current practice.
• Limited insight due to lack of evidence from the Registrant.
• Limited remediation due to lack of evidence from the Registrant.
• Potential risk of Service User harm as a result of the Registrant’s conduct.

84. The Panel was required first to consider whether the finding that the misconduct allegation is well founded requires the imposition of any sanction. If the answer to that question is that a sanction is required, then the available sanctions should be considered in an ascending order of seriousness. The Panel confirms that it has approached the decision in that manner and has fully considered the terms of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy.

85. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

86. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel decided that the nature of the misconduct is serious and cannot be dealt with by way of taking no action. That Order would fail to send the appropriate message to the profession and to the public that the conduct is unacceptable.

87. It then considered the imposition of a Caution Order but again determined that as a result of the facts found proved in this case, and due to the lack of evidence of insight and remediation, an Order that does not restrict the Registrant’s practice would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel considered the Sanctions policy and the guidance in relation to Caution Orders and noted that it is the least restrictive option. The Panel determined that a Caution order would be inappropriate in view of the circumstances of the case. The Panel decided that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to impose Caution Order.

88. The Panel noted the Registrant’s limited engagement in the regulatory process and that there was no direct evidence from the Registrant regarding his current practice. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate as the Panel could not formulate any conditions that would address the Panel’s concerns due to lack of engagement from the Registrant. In addition, the Panel determined that due to the Registrant’s lack of engagement, there was no evidence that the Registrant would comply with any conditions imposed.

89. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order and determined that a Suspension Order for 6 months would be the most appropriate and proportionate sanction in the particular circumstances of this case. This would allow the Registrant to engage with his regulator if he wished and would allow time for reflection on the impact of his conduct on the reputation of the profession, risk to service users and in the eyes of the Panel be sufficient to address the wider public interest. The Panel note the Registrant’s previous unblemished career and does not consider the facts of this case justify a strike off.

90. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case was a 6 month Suspension Order.

91. The Panel determined that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by the following:

• The Registrant’s attendance at future reviews.
• A reflective statement addressing the issues of record keeping and communication.
• Any practical steps taken to address maintenance of professional standards and any evidence of CPD addressing the issues.
• Testimonials.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Patrick with a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

94. As the Suspension Order cannot take effect until the end of the 28-day appeal period, the Panel has considered whether an Interim Order is required in the specific circumstances of this case. It may only make an Interim Order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest or in your own interest until the sanction takes effect. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Submissions on Interim Order

95. The Panel took account of the submissions made by Mr Moran. He submitted that an Interim Order was necessary to address the risk to public and to uphold the confidence in profession. He informed the Panel that the sanction which it has imposed would not take effect for 28 days. He submitted that an 18 month Interim Order would address the risks identified by the Panel and cover any potential period of appeal.

Decision and reasons on Interim Order

96. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Panel had regard to the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the Substantive Order in reaching the decision to impose an interim order.

97. The Panel concluded that an interim conditions of practice order would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case, due to the reasons already identified in the Panel’s determination for imposing the Substantive Order.

98. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

99. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 12 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Adrian Patrick