Mr Mohammed F Siddiqui

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel found that good service was effected by a notice of hearing dated 19 December 2023.

Background
2. The Registrant qualified as a Radiographer in 1986. At the time of the Allegations above he was employed by Salford Royal NHS Trust. At a final hearing on 20-22 September 2010 and 12 January 2011, these allegations were found proved. The panel found that between 2003 and 2008, the Registrant was involved in incidents when he scanned patients incorrectly and gave advice outside the scope of his practise. He delayed reporting the results of scans and his results could not be verified. He examined patients without a supervisor and made derogatory comments about a colleague. The Registrant performed an intimate scan on a patient that was not clinically justified and was found to be sexually motivated. The failings identified above constituted misconduct and lack of competence. The Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The panel determined that his name should be struck off the HCPC Register. At that time he was known as Mr Mohammed Faheem.

3. In June 2019 the Registrant made enquiries with the HCPC about restoring his name to the HCPC Register. He was advised to submit a full application which was received in November 2019. A hearing under Article 33 of the 2001 Order took place on 16 November 2020. The burden was upon the Registrant to satisfy the Panel of his fitness to practise and that his name should be restored to the Register. The restoration hearing panel found that: Since 2013, the Registrant has undertaken ultrasound related work. The Registrant is employed by Mediscan Diagnostic Services. He is employed to provide support and ongoing training to junior clinical members of staff and training to newly appointed sonographers. In addition, he undertakes an audit role managing any discrepancies in reporting.

4. A document from NE, Consultant Radiologist and CEO of Mediscan, confirmed that there had been no concerns with the Registrant’s work and he was a respected colleague. NE confirmed that he had supported the Registrant’s continued clinical development. In addition, as part of his role the Registrant had undertaken a number of courses dealing with ultrasound and other related topics. The Registrant provided a variety of additional documents, including his CV which outlined training that had been undertaken with his current employer. The Registrant also provided testimonials from colleagues and trainees.

5. In relation to returning to practice, the Panel noted the minimum requirements of those returning to work after more than 5 years: A person not registered for a period of 5 years, must undertake 60 days of profession related activities, in accordance with the HCPC requirements for professionals returning to practice. In relation to someone previously struck off, it is not sufficient for that person to merely establish they meet the requisite standard of clinical proficiency for registration.

6. The Striking Off Order in 2011 arose from serious concerns due to the Registrant’s misconduct and lack of competence, in particular a finding he was sexually motivated.

7. The restoration panel was satisfied that the Registrant had undertaken significant steps to address the findings that were made at the time of his striking off. The Registrant had worked in a teaching and audit role and appeared to have performed well in this role and to be well respected by his line manager and students. On the basis of the Registrant’s evidence in relation to the work that he had undertaken in that role, coupled with the training that he had undertaken, and the statements from NE, the panel was satisfied that the Registrant met the standard of proficiency for registration.

8. The panel was satisfied that the Registrant had reflected on the incidents that resulted in his original striking off and had shown a degree of insight. The Registrant stated in his evidence that he had reflected significantly. He expressed genuine remorse for his conduct and had an understanding of the serious lapse in his professionalism. He explained that he had been experiencing some very difficult personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct but he had taken steps to resolve these including undertaking counselling at his own expense.

9. The panel noted that the Registrant did not seek to go behind the findings of the previous panel and accepted responsibility for his actions. He did not seek to blame others or excuse his conduct. He explained that he was not thinking clearly at the relevant time and that he no longer considered the allegations were a conspiracy against him. He explained that he did not recognise himself, and although he was faced with difficult circumstances, he accepted that he had made poor judgements which were wholly out of character, given his previously long unblemished career.

10. He explained that if faced with circumstances similar to the ones which led to his being struck off the Register, he would do things differently. He understood the importance of clear communication and record keeping and reporting results without delay. He was able to explain the importance of chaperones and, if permitted to return to the Register, he would ensure that one was present at all times. The Registrant was realistic about the level of his skills and readily admitted that he would require refresher training in relation to some aspects of his practice. The panel considered that the Registrant had taken significant steps since his striking off to address the issues identified.

11. However, the panel was not satisfied that it was appropriate for the Registrant to return to unrestricted practice. The panel had some residual concerns in relation to his level of insight into the potential impact that his actions might have had on patients and the profession. The panel considered his reflection was lacking in this aspect. In addition the panel was concerned that the Registrant had not fully reflected on the sexual misconduct element and although it did not consider he was at risk of repeating his misconduct, it concluded that his reflection on the impact his conduct had on Patient A was lacking.

12. The panel noted that although the Registrant had been successfully working in a role related to sonography, he had no recent experience working as an autonomous Radiographer. The panel was nevertheless satisfied that conditions could be formulated to adequately address these concerns. Demonstration of successfully working under supervision and appropriate commitment to a Personal Development Plan would be necessary before a panel could consider his return to unrestricted practice.

13. The Application for restoration was granted on 16 November 2020 with a Conditions of Practice Order being imposed, as follows:

The Registrar is directed to restore the name of Mohammed Faheem (the Registrant) to the Radiographer Part of the Register, but restoration is only to take effect once the Registrant has:
a. provided the Registrar with any information and declarations required for admission to the Register;
b. paid the prescribed restoration fee; [and]
c. satisfied the Registrar that, in relation to the Registrant, there is or will be in force appropriate cover under an indemnity arrangement.

The Registrar is further directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order takes effect (the Operative Date), the Registrant must comply with the following conditions of practice:
1. You must only undertake work that requires registration by the HCPC with your current employer.
2. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by your current employer or take up any other or further employment and provide your employment details.
3. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary or capability proceedings taken against you by any employer employing you to undertake any role that requires you to be registered with the HCPC.
4. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c) any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

5. You must not carry out any of the following procedures unsupervised, until you have been signed off as competent to undertake these procedures independently, by your workplace supervisor;
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning

6. You must not carry out trans-vaginal scans.

7. You must not carry out any other procedures unsupervised unless you have completed refresher training and you have been signed off as competent by your workplace supervisor.

8. Except in life threatening emergencies you must not be involved in the direct provision of services to female patients without a chaperone being present.

9. You must maintain a record of:
a) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to female patients, in each case signed by the chaperone; and
b) every case where you have been involved in the direct provision of services to such services in a life-threatening emergency and without a chaperone being present

10. You must provide a copy of these records to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review of this order.

11. You must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within 3 weeks of the Operative date. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

12. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in your practical experience of the following areas of your practice:
i) Abdominal scanning
ii) Trans-abdominal gynaecology scanning
iii) Small parts scanning
iv) Musculoskeletal scanning
v) Record Keeping

13. Within three months of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of
your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

14. You must meet with your supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

15. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

16. You must provide a copy of your completed Personal Development Plan to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.

17. You must produce a reflective piece detailing the progress you have made in developing your insight regarding impact of your misconduct on patients and the wider profession and including any learning. The completed reflective piece to be provided to the HCPC no later than 3 weeks before any review hearing.

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

The Registrant’s evidence and submissions today
14. The Registrant gave evidence that he has reflected upon the incident with Patient A. He expressed his remorse and wished to apologise.

15. The Registrant has supplied a statement dated 31 December 2023 stating:

I have compiled a list of my Learning Objectives together with plans to meet those objectives. To reflect on the resources required with a timescale plan too. Due to the Pandemic and not being fully restored to the HPC Register then and now to the present day without conditions, I have not been able to move on with my PDP or career in any way other than what I currently do with Mediscan. I am restricted and limited as due to the annotation on HPC register, I effectively remain struck off after 12 years.

I am currently on paternal leave upon the birth of our twins after many years so my energies have naturally been rightly directed here for now. My work involves audits of scans and reports, also currently training a student studying Ultrasound at University of Salford whom I have been involved in mentoring and supervising. I have kept up to date with all my skills based on student mentoring and supervising which constantly means staying up to date with knowledge based on questions asked regularly by the student.

To develop my teaching skills further and try and resume my teaching career as started in 2007/8 at Lancaster University where I taught students for 2 sessions on Ultrasound which went really well. This would involve revisiting the University faculty and exploring what is available. Teaching has been my passion which I do to this day and I hope the timescale would not be too long before I can progress in this direction. Subject to being exonerated and annotated on register without conditions.

During 2006-2008 I was involved with early screening for ovarian cancer with the Wellcome Trust at the University of Manchester. I unfortunately failed to complete this vital project which I gave a lot of my time and dedication to as I truly enjoyed this work. This all stopped in 2008 when I became under investigation.

I would love to revisit this work or type of work project if anything similar came up in future which involved ultrasound. Timescale not so important as research projects by nature take time and input and require dedication which I had then and would have now too should the opportunity arise.

My mainstay of employment has always been for the NHS. I truly miss the hospital work I did throughout my 18 year career. To be able to do some work part time would be my goal. I have done numerous CPD and attended many courses even after being struck off too the opportunity to develop my MSK scanning skills and attending a whole conference in Dubai ran by St Lukes Radiology, Oxford University in 2016. This involved ultrasound guided injections and improving techniques of scanning MSK. I wish to also develop my vascular skills which I started to look at in 2008. Again all these timescales will depend upon being exonerated. I have completed my application to be restored in 2021/2 and have complied with all areas asked of me, to which I am still up to date with to present day.

Legal Assessor’s advice
16. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to consider if the Registrant is fit to return to unrestricted practice. The hearing today is not a rehearing of the original allegations or the restoration hearing and the Panel cannot go behind the previous panel’s findings. The Panel has to make an assessment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise as at today’s date.

17. The Panel should take into account the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Article 30 Reviews” and “Finding that Fitness to Practice is Impaired”. If the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired the Panel will need to consider what restriction, if any, should be imposed.
18. The Panel must follow the principles of fairness and proportionality and have regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Policy states: Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.

19. Under Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2001 all Conditions of Practice Orders must be reviewed before they expire. The Panel has the power under Article 30 to vary, extend, replace or revoke the existing sanction. All the sanction options are available today.

20. The decision in Abrahaem v GMC states that in practical terms there is a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant, to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently: “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

21. Accordingly, the review process today requires the Registrant to demonstrate both developed insight and remediation enabling him to safely return to unrestricted practice. There is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to do so.

Decision
22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has taken into account the relevant HCPTS Practice Notes and the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

23. The Panel has considered the personal component which includes the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant, and the public component which includes protecting service users, declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the profession.

24. The Panel has considered the evidence, documentation and submissions made.

25. The Panel finds that there has been a lack of progress since the last hearing, as regards the Registrant’s remediation and insight. He has not fully remediated his misconduct on the basis of the evidence and submissions before the Panel today. The Panel accepts the submissions of Ms Welsh that the Registrant has not complied with the current Conditions of Practice Order.

26. In particular he is in breach of paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and his compliance with paragraphs 5 and 9 is uncertain. The Registrant has not engaged with the current Conditions of Practice Order in any meaningful way, since they came into effect in August 2022.

27. The substantive hearing panel found a wide-ranging lack of competence and sexually motivated misconduct, which was serious enough to cause alarm and distress to a patient. The Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, he sought to blame others and he lacked insight into his extremely serious misconduct. There was no evidence of remediation.

28. The restoration panel in 2020 found the Registrant’s insight and reflection was lacking, in particular as to the sexual misconduct finding although there was no finding of a likelihood of a repetition of such misconduct, by that panel.

29. The current position is that the Registrant has not fully remediated the concerns under the personal and public components. There is no evidence of insight apart from expressions of apology and regret from the Registrant. He could not explain his sexual misconduct to the Panel and there was no evidence of reflection as to the finding of sexual motivation. He suggested that he was not sexually motivated because the patient was a lesbian. In general terms his emphasis was on the impact upon his own health and not upon the panel’s finding as to what he did. He denied sexual motivation and said it was necessary for him to examine the patient due to bleeding. The original panel found that there was no justification for what he did but he sought to justify it today. The explanation he provided in an email dated 19 December 2022 sent to the HCPC shows he does not accept the findings of the original panel.

30. The Panel concludes that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired under the personal and public components. There is a lack of remediation under the personal component; and a member of the public would be shocked if the Registrant’s fitness to practise was found not to be currently impaired. The Registrant did not make a favourable impression on the Panel today. He has regressed since the last hearing.

31. As regards the appropriate sanction, if any. Taking no further action or the sanction of a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Allegations found proved and the current finding of impairment.

32. The Panel considered extending or varying the Conditions of Practice Order but the Panel finds that a further Conditions of Practice Order would not be workable, realistic, proportionate and sufficient to protect the public and not effectively amount to suspension.

33. Overall, the Panel finds there has been no meaningful engagement by the Registrant with the Conditions of Practice Order. There is a risk of a repetition of the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct despite the passage of time, in view of the evidence before the Panel today. The Registrant has not undertaken any courses or training relevant to the concerns raised, such as training on patient dignity and consent, professional boundaries and scope of practice. The Registrant is aware that he offended Patient A but he has not reflected upon the impact of this on patients and other professionals as suggested by the previous panel. There is no independent evidence of training or counselling undertaken by the Registrant, since August 2022. He is in breach of the current Order. There is no good explanation for the Registrant’s failure to comply with the current Conditions and the Panel has no confidence that the Registrant would comply with future conditions of practice.

34. The Registrant has demonstrated serious and persistent failings. He has not engaged properly with the HCPC review process. Remediation cannot be achieved merely through the passage of time.

35. The Panel concludes the Registrant should have a further opportunity to develop his insight and remediation. The sanction of a 12 month Suspension Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction today to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Panel considers this is the least restrictive Order consistent with the public interest and fairness to the Registrant. This is necessary to reflect the serious concerns and breach of standards and the lack of insight and remediation. The Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC has demonstrated an unwillingness to resolve matters. The deterrent effect of a suspension is sufficient to protect the public and will afford the Registrant the opportunity to provide a reflective piece and comply with the Panel’s suggestions, as to what would assist the reviewing panel.

36. Having determined that a Suspension Order appeared to meet all the legitimate requirements of a sanction in this case and that it was proportionate in all the circumstances; the Panel then considered whether the case would more properly merit a Striking off Order under the Sanctions Policy.

37. A striking off would be unduly punitive. The requirements of public protection and the wider public interest can be adequately served by a Suspension Order. A Striking off Order would be disproportionate and too severe in the present circumstances.

38. All sanction options including Striking off will be available to the reviewing panel. The Panel today has concluded that a Suspension Order for 12 months is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

39. This Order will be reviewed before it expires and the reviewing panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing the following: -
i. A reflective piece fully addressing the impact of his misconduct on patients, colleagues and the public
ii. ii. Evidence from his current employer setting out details of his areas of responsibility and current work.
iii. Evidence of training and professional development, including courses relevant to the concerns raised, such as training on patient dignity and consent, professional boundaries and scope of practice.
iv. Evidence of supervision or counselling addressing the causes of his sexual misconduct.
v. His attendance at the next review hearing.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Mr Mohammed F Siddiqui from the Register for a period of 12 months from the date of expiry of the current Order on 11 February 2024.

This Order will be reviewed before its expiry.

History of Hearings for Mr Mohammed F Siddiqui