
Gloria Masango
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP32749), your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:
1. Between January 2019 and March 2021, you falsified the following certificates to indicate you had undertaken the mandatory training required:
a. i The certificate purporting to be issued by Healthier Business Group and/or Medirite Healthcare Agency containing training courses between dates 14 and 17 January 2019.
ii The certificate purporting to be issued by Healthier Business Group and/or Medirite Healthcare Agency containing training courses between dates 14 and 17 January 2020
iii. The certificate purporting to be issued by the Health and Safety Group dated 4 January 2020
iv. The certificate purporting to be issued by Redi-Training dated 10 July 2019
b. You provided these falsified certificates to two medical staffing agencies, Sirona Agency and/or Your World Recruitment Group, as proof of qualification; and/or
c. You amended/falsified original certificates which belonged to other Health professionals and presented them to two medical staffing agencies, Sirona Agency and/or Your World Recruitment Group as proof of your qualification.
2. Your conduct in relation to particular 1 above was dishonest in that you intended to use the certificates as proof of courses you had not undertaken.
3. The matters set out in particulars 1-2 above constitute misconduct.
4. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practice is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Application for a private hearing
1. The Panel was advised by Ms Collins for the HCPC that information about the Registrant’s private life may arise during the course of the hearing. She referred to the relevant rules and submitted that this hearing should be heard in part in private to protect the Registrant’s privacy in line with her human rights. Mr Oshunrinade supported the application.
2. Having taken advice from the Legal Assessor as to the interests of justice and the importance of the open justice principle, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate in the circumstances to conduct the hearing in part in private if and when any matters regarding the Registrant’s private life arise in order to protect her right to privacy.
Background
3. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner with the HCPC. On 20 April 2021, the HCPC received a referral from Neuven Audit Solutions Limited, who provide compliance and auditing services, raising concerns about the Registrant’s alleged falsification of Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) mandatory certification.
4. The Registrant owns a private company, Medirite Limited, also known as Medirite Healthcare Agency or Medirite Healthcare. The Registrant also works in the NHS and she had registered with a number of recruitment agencies, including Sirona Medical and Your World Recruitment. As part of the recruitment process with these two agencies, the Registrant provided training certifications which purported to show that she had completed several mandatory training courses, and this included both online and practical in person training.
5. On 28 May 2021, Ben Clark from Neuven Audit Solutions confirmed to the HCPC by email that Sirona Medical, a recruitment agency, placed the Registrant on assignment without verifying her training certificates. Concerns were raised about the Registrant’s training certificates during an audit undertaken at Sirona Medical. As part of the audit, Neuven Audit Solutions was required to validate training records with the relevant training providers. Confirmation was obtained from the training providers stated in the certificates that indicated that a number of the Registrant’s certificates were not genuine
6. Your World Recruitment, another recruitment agency, was also in the process of registering the Registrant. The Registrant had also provided training certifications to them. Neuven Audit Solutions was contacted by Your World Recruitment to validate the Registrant’s qualifications as part of their onboarding process.
7. An audit was overseen by Ben Clark and this audit identified a sample of training documentation provided by the Registrant as inauthentic. Your World Recruitment was advised that some of the certificates had been altered to make it appear as if the Registrant had completed training when the training had not in fact taken place. Checks undertaken by the training providers also indicated that some training certificates related to training completed by others who had been recruited by the Registrant for her own company.
8. The Registrant admitted the facts of the allegation, including dishonesty. The HCPC presented evidence from six witnesses:
• Ben Clark, Operations Manager at Neuven Consult, Part of Neuven Solutions
• Karsia Mataj, Director of Clinical Governance at Your World Recruitment Group
• Melanie Burrell, General Manager at Sirona Medical Limited
• David Rankin, Client Support Manager at Healthier Business UK Limited
• Wenol Messham, Operations Director Health and Safety Group
• Alexandra Redpath, Managing Director and Founder of Redi Training Limited/ Advanced Nurse Practitioner at Grafton Medical Partners
Summary of Evidence
Witness 1 – Ben Clark (BC)
9. BC is the Operations Manager at Neuven Consult, part of Neuven Solutions Holdings Limited which provides auditing services. He was referred to and adopted his written witness statement.
10. BC explained that Neuven Solutions Limited (“Neuven”) is a vendor for temporary staffing and workforce management. He explained that Neuven also provides auditing and compliance services. He stated that his role can involve escalating and reporting suspected fraudulent activity discovered during audits.
11. BC explained the role of the auditor which can include validating the identities of the candidates, their right to work, the dates of training and whether these dates match up with dates of employment. He said that the auditor collates all the certificates from a training provider and will send them over to that training provider to verify that the certificates are genuine.
12. BC told the Panel that on 19 October 2020, Neuven were to conduct an audit of Sirona Medical Limited. The auditor assigned to this audit was Nicola Price (NP). NP conducted the audit and one of the files randomly selected as part of this audit of Sirona Medical Limited was a training certificate displaying the Registrant’s name.
13. On 19 October 2020, NP contacted Healthier Business Group and asked them to verify that several certificates were genuine and valid. One of these certificates displayed the Registrant’s name and listed several online training courses completed in January 2020 and 2021. On 22 October 2020, NP received an email back from David Rankin (DR), the Client Support Manager at Healthier Business Group. In this email, DR confirmed that one of the certificates sent to him by NP listing online courses apparently completed in January 2020 displaying the name of the Registrant, this was not issued by Healthier Business Group.
14. BC stated that NP escalated this concern to him verbally, and on 22 October 2020, NP emailed Mel Burrell (MB) at Sirona Medical to inform her of the false certificate. On 22 October 2020, MB called NP to discuss the investigation and NP sent her an email following this call requesting that MB send all the certificates and documentation they held on file for the Registrant.
15. As a result, BC stated that NP had also performed a validation check of the Health and Safety Group certificate searching for the certificate on the Healthcare Register using the Certificate Number in the top right-hand corner of the certificate. The Healthcare Register showed that the original certificate with this Certificate Number was granted to another person, not the Registrant. When NP checked she found that the person named on the certificate worked for Medirite Limited, a company that she understood the Registrant owns and directs.
16. BC stated that on 2 March 2021, he had received an email from Kasia Mataj (KM) from Your World Recruitment asking him to contact her about their investigation into a falsified certificate of the Registrant’s. On 3 March 2021, KM emailed BC to ask for confirmation that Neuven were leading the investigation and BC told her that they were investigating and had requested additional information. KM replied outlining the internal investigation she had conducted and attached a Healthier Business Group certificate, a Manual Handling certificate and a REDI Training Limited certificate.
17. BC told the Panel that on 3 March 2021, he had called KM. She had explained that she had become aware that the Registrant, who was also a candidate at Your World Recruitment at the time, was blocked from receiving any further training from Healthier Business Group due to the discovery of a falsified certificate. KM explained to BC that she had also checked another one of the Registrant’s training certificates which had been from a different training provider, REDI Training Limited dated 10 July 2019, and she had found that this certificate was also falsified.
18. Following his correspondence with KM, BC said that he had amended and updated the NHS Counter Fraud Report that he had earlier submitted. On 20 April 2021, BC escalated this fraudulent finding to their client, the Health Trust Europe, and to the NHS Counter Fraud Authority and the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”). He also referred the matter to the HCPC. He said that certificates had to be genuine for patient safety and it was crucial that practitioners had up to date training.
19. BC explained that agencies that supply NHS with staff had to ensure that the staff they supply were compliant, safe, properly skilled and competent. The audit process makes sure that there is compliance and ultimately he said it was about patient safety.
Application to Amend
20. Ms Collins for the HCPC applied to amend the allegation to add a further sub-particular at allegation 1(i) to refer to a further training certificate issued by Healthier Business Group in 2019, so that new sub-particular 1(i) would read as follows:
“1 (i) The certificate purporting to be issued by Healthier Business Group and/or Medirite Healthcare Agency containing training courses between dates 14 and 17 January 2019.”
21. Ms Collins submitted that this was supported by witness DR of Healthier Business Group in his witness statement which clearly states that this certificate from 2019 is “falsified”. The certificate is exhibited by witness KM. Ms Collins also sought to add the word “or” in particulars 1 b) and 1 c) between the words Sirona Agency and Your World Recruitment Group. She submitted this was not prejudicial to the Registrant and the amendment should be allowed.
22. Mr Oshunrinade submitted that his client was not able to verify the position and would require to ask the witness DR to do so. He objected to the amendment at this time as his client has no access to the system, it came in at a late stage and he submitted that put his client in a difficult position.
23. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel about fairness, the interests of justice and the avoidance of under prosecution. The Panel should consider whether the proposed amendment alters the overall nature and gravity of the allegation and whether it causes any prejudice to the Registrant.
24. The Panel accepted the legal advice and considered the proposed amendments. The Panel considered that this proposed amendment is of a similar nature to the other parts of allegation 1, and that it does not alter the overall nature or gravity of the allegation. The Panel considered that it was unfortunate the matter had not been captured in the allegation, particularly so as it is in the evidence of DR, in his witness statement, and the 2019 certificate itself is exhibited by KM. It is, in that respect, not a new matter and the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has had fair notice of that evidence. A consequential change to the stem of the allegation is also required to change the date range to January 2019.
25. The amendment is sought after hearing from one witness. However, the Panel did not consider that the proposed amendment resulted in prejudice to the Registrant, who will in due course be entitled to test and challenge the evidence, including that of DR and KM in cross examination. Given the evidence, to omit the proposed amendment would likely amount to an under-prosecution, and that is contrary to the public interest. The adding of “or” as proposed is minor and is not prejudicial. The Panel was therefore
satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice to allow this amendment. It will be for the HCPC to prove the new sub-particular.
26. Mr Oshunrinade indicated that the Registrant admitted the new sub-particular 1 a) i).
Witness 2 - Kasia Mataj (KM)
27. KM is the Director of Clinical Governance at Your World Recruitment Group in London. She adopted her written witness statement. She stated that the Registrant applied to join Your World Healthcare, which is part of Your World Recruitment Group on 2 October 2019. The Registrant was interviewed on 28 October 2019 and began work shortly after that. KM explained that as part of the recruitment process, applicants must submit valid training certificates which demonstrate that they have met all of the mandatory training requirements for professionals working in the NHS.
28. KM told the Panel that Your World Healthcare’s mandatory training requirements are aligned with the NHS employment guidance criteria and are defined by the NHS Skills for Health Framework. As part of her application, the Registrant submitted training certificates to Your World Healthcare. KM explained that in February 2021, Your World Healthcare attempted to enrol the Registrant on some further training with Healthier Business, a training provider, as her existing training had expired and required updating. KM said it was reported to her that the Healthier Business portal would not allow any further training to be booked by or on behalf of the Registrant as her account was blocked.
29. KM then made further enquiries with a Mr Henry at Healthier Business who told her that the Registrant had previously falsified certificates so they had blocked her account. KM said that Mr Henry explained to her that Healthier Business had become aware of this issue when they were contacted by Neuven Solutions who had conducted an audit for a different recruitment agency. As part of this audit, Healthier Business had found that two of the Registrant's training certificates were falsified.
30. On 26 February 2021, Mr Henry sent an email to KM explaining that a training certificate, which displayed the name of Medirite Healthcare Agency and showed a list of on-line courses apparently completed by the Registrant between 14-17 January 2019, was falsified. Mr Henry explained that he knew this because Medirite Healthcare Agency was not a client of the agency, nor was there any record of the Registrant completing the training courses on the dates listed on that certificate.
31. On 26 February 2021, KM contacted REDI Training Ltd (“REDI”) to ask them to verify whether the Registrant’s training certificate for basic life support training dated 10 July 2019 that appeared to have been issued by their company was genuine. REDI responded informing KM that the certificate was not genuine and that the name and date had been amended. KM told the Panel that the training certificates submitted by the Registrant dated 10 July 2019 and 17 January 2019 were not genuine as the training had not been done.
32. KM said that she did not know how many shifts the Registrant would have done through them. She said that training was necessary for patient safety and the agency also had contractual obligations to ensure that people placed by them had the appropriate skills. She confirmed that the Registrant had completed some additional training whilst she was with them, as it was training that required to be renewed periodically.
33. KM said that the agency would indicate the training that required to be done, unless it had already been completed by the applicant signing up to the agency. She said the training certificates could be manipulated. She said the training did carry a cost but that applicants were not required to pay for the training. She said that now training certificates are automatically verified by them with the third party provider.
Witness 3 - Melanie Burrell (MB)
34. Melanie Burrell is the General Manager at Sirona Medical Limited (Sirona). She adopted her written witness statement. She explained that Sirona is a healthcare recruitment specialist supplying healthcare professionals. MB explained how professionals are recruited and how their qualifications are checked, in particular for the mandatory training requirements for work in the NHS. She said the Registrant was on their books and had been placed in a hospital for ODP work. MB said that at that time in 2020 the training certificates submitted by candidates were not verified by them with the third party training provider, but since this incident all certificates are now verified.
35. MB told the Panel that on 20 October 2020 she was contacted by NP from Neuven, auditors of agencies such as Sirona, who advised that they had learned that some of the training certificates submitted by the Registrant were falsified. She said that Neuven told her that two of the training certificates submitted by the Registrant were false: one dated 4 January 2020 from the Health and Safety Group, and the other certificate in respect of a number of online courses apparently completed on 16 -17 January 2020 from Healthier Business Group.
36. MB said that she had tried to contact the Registrant and left her a message but did not hear back from her. She said that a colleague had later spoken to the Registrant whom she was told had been “aggressive” and had insisted that the certificates were “valid.”
37. MB said that on 22 October 2020 she emailed all the training certificates to Neuven and also emailed the Registrant stating that she had learned from their auditors that the training in the certificates had not been done by her and she was then removed from the agency. MB recalled that some of the certificates were genuine, but two in particular were not.
Witness 4 – David Rankin (DR)
38. David Rankin is currently employed as a Client Support Manager at Healthier Business UK Ltd. He adopted his written witness statement. He explained his role and said that he can be asked to verify certificates. He would first check whether the certificate seemed visually correct. For example, he would identify whether there are any obvious abnormalities with the logos, text or formatting that did not match their standard certificate formatting.
39. DR told the Panel that he would cross-reference the certificate he was verifying with the training records on their electronic system to check whether the dates on the certificate aligned with the training dates recorded. He then ensured that the continued professional development (“CPD”) points on the certificate were correct and would also check the signature on the bottom of the certificate and date on the bottom of the certificate to ensure that these were correct, and that the training period has not expired. Finally, he said that he would also check the relevant candidate’s activity log on their electronic system to check whether this activity matches the training outlined on the certificate.
40. DR said that on 19 October 2020, he received an email from Neuven requesting that he verify a certificate headed “Medirite Healthcare Agency” listing online courses apparently completed by the Registrant on 14 – 16 January 2020 which had allegedly been issued by Healthier Business Group. This certificate displayed the name of the Registrant. When DR reviewed this certificate, he said he initially noticed several discrepancies and concluded the certificate was falsified. He said that the foot of the certificate indicated that it had been copied and pasted from another certificate and showed the wrong years. He had concluded that it was not genuine.
41. DR said that he was later presented with two further certificates as part of the initial HCPC investigation. One certificate headed “Medirite Healthcare Agency” listed online courses apparently completed by the Registrant on 14 – 17 January 2019, and another similar certificate listing training completed in 2022. He said that having checked these certificates he concluded that the earlier certificate for online training in January 2019 was falsified, the one for training in 2022 was genuine.
42. DR said that when he had reviewed the certificates he had noticed that the formatting was visibly abnormal. The footer text and logos were overlapping the border of the first and second certificates that display the logo of Healthier Business Group. He had also noticed that the CPD Standards logo displayed at the bottom of the certificates was dated ‘2016 – 2018’ whereas the correct logo would have been dated ‘2018 – 2022’.
43. DR said that he also checked the Registrant’s Medirite training account online and found that this account was created on 8 April 2021. He said this post-dated the dates of the training on the certificates which evidenced that the Registrant could not have completed the training with Healthier Business Group on the dates listed on the certificates. He also noted that whilst the Registrant had completed some training courses with Medirite, the training completed did not match the training listed on the certificates. DR said it appeared that some of the other certificates he had considered were genuine.
Witness 5 – Wenol Messham (WM)
44. Wenol Messham is currently employed as the Operations Director at The Health and Safety Group which provides training courses for health care professionals. She adopted her written witness statement. WM told the Panel that the Health & Safety Group was contacted by the HCPC and was asked to verify a certificate headed “Mandatory and Statutory (Practical) Training Course” dated 4 January 2020 (reference number 294435) which showed the name of the Registrant. WM reviewed the certificate and concluded that it was not genuine. Within The Health and Safety Group training records, WM said that there was no record of the Registrant completing training on 4 January 2020. WM said that the training was an annual, mandatory course required by the NHS framework.
45. WM said that the certificate stated that the training was delivered in London Victoria. However, WM said they were not training in London Victoria on 4 January 2020 so this course could not have taken place in that venue on the day listed on the certificate provided by the Registrant. Further, the format and design of the certificate did not match that of their internal certificate templates. Additionally, she explained that in the bottom left-hand corner of the certificate is the Health and Safety Groups Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) accreditation logo. On the certificate which the Registrant had provided, that CPD accreditation logo was out of date. WM said that the CPD accreditation logo was always in date and matches the year that the training certificate was issued.
46. WM said that she also searched for the certificate number located at the top right-hand corner of the certificate on The Health and Safety Group’s internal certificate verification system – The Healthcare Certificate Register - and found that this certificate number related to a certificate awarded to a person that was not the Registrant. That other individual had completed the course on 26 February 2018. Further, the trainer listed on the certificate that the Registrant provided, was not working for The Health and Safety Group on 4 January 2020.
47. WM said that to the best of her knowledge the certificate provided by the Registrant was not genuine and they had no record of the Registrant completing this training on the 4 January 2020. The Registrant’s name was also searched in the verification system and WM said there was a record of the Registrant attending training in 2014 and 2015. The cost of the course was £79 plus VAT.
Witness 6 - Alexandra Redpath (AR)
48. Alexandra Redpath is an Advanced Nurse Practitioner and the Managing Director of REDI Training. She adopted her written witness statement. She explained that REDI provide training for GP Surgeries and other health care professionals in London. She stated that electronic records are kept of all training provided.
49. On 26 February 2021 she was contacted by KM from Your World Healthcare and asked to verify a Basic Life Support Training certificate apparently issued by REDI dated 10 July 2019 showing the name of the Registrant. KM said the type face was wrong and, when she checked, REDI had not done any training on 10 July 2019. She stated it appeared this certificate appeared to have had the name and date “amended” and was not genuine. It had also expired as it was only valid for a year.
50. AR said she reported the matter to KM. AR said this was very important training particularly for ODPs, and was an annual update. At the time it would have been face-to-face training. The training would typically be charged for a group of about 12, but if individuals attended the course it would cost about £55 per person and would last about two hours.
Application to adjourn
51. On Monday 22 July 2024 the hearing reconvened. Mr Oshunrinade applied to adjourn the hearing for one day on Tuesday, 23 July 2024 due to family commitments. He stated that he had been made aware of this commitment at the “last minute” and he apologised for the inconvenience. He indicated he would be able to sit after 3pm. Ms Collins did not object.
52. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it must be mindful of the interests of justice and fairness to both parties. The Panel decided that in all the circumstances and, given the hearing was scheduled for another four days, it was appropriate and fair to allow the adjournment sought.
Decision on Facts and Misconduct
53. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised as to the standard and burden of proof, which rests on the HCPC. He referred the Panel to guidance on dishonesty in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and he provided a good character direction in respect of the Registrant. He referred the Panel to the guidance on misconduct as described in Roylance v GMC (No 2) 20001 1 AC 311 and in Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin).
54. The Panel considered the allegation and was mindful of the balance of probabilities and that the burden of proof rests on the HCPC. It made the following findings in respect of the allegation.
1. Between January 2019 and March 2021, you falsified the following certificates to indicate you had undertaken the mandatory training required:
a. i The certificate purporting to be issued by Healthier Business Group and/or Medirite Healthcare Agency containing training courses between dates 14 and 17 January 2019.
55. The Registrant admitted this particular. The Panel heard evidence from DR. who said he had checked the certificate and concluded from his examination that it had been “falsified.” That was consistent with and supported by the admission from the Registrant. The Panel found the evidence credible and reliable, and found this proved.
ii The certificate purporting to be issued by Healthier Business Group and/or Medirite Healthcare Agency containing training courses between dates 14 and 17 January 2020
56. The Registrant admitted this particular. The evidence from BC and DR was consistent and corroborative. DR found the certificate was “falsified” and this is supported by the evidence of BC and the admission of the Registrant herself. The Panel found this proved.
iii. The certificate purporting to be issued by the Health and Safety Group dated 4 January 2020
57. The Registrant admitted this particular. WM explained that no training had taken place that day as stated in the certificate. She explained that the format and design was not correct. That evidence is consistent with the credible evidence from the auditor, BC, who had checked the certificate number and found that it had been issued to another person, Person A, not to the Registrant. That evidence is consistent and corroborative and the Panel found this proved.
iv. The certificate purporting to be issued by Redi-Training dated 10 July 2019
58. The Registrant has admitted this particular. AR told the Panel that this was a false certificate because there was no training conducted on 10 July 2019 by Redi-Training, that the name and date on the certificate had been changed, and the font was incorrect. The Panel found AR’s evidence to be credible and reliable and consistent with the Registrant’s admission. The Panel found this particular proved.
1 b. You provided these falsified certificates to two medical staffing agencies, Sirona Agency and/or Your World Recruitment Group, as proof of qualification; and/or
59. The Registrant admitted this particular. BC and KM gave consistent evidence that the REDI certificate dated 10 July 2019 and the Healthier Business certificates for online courses completed in January 2019 and 2020 had been provided by the Registrant to Your World Recruitment Group. This is supported by the evidence from BC who had also checked the certificates and found they were false.
60. The Panel also heard from MB from Sirona Agency about two certificates provided to them by the Registrant, one dated 4 January 2020 from the Health and Safety Group, the other from Healthier Business Group for online courses apparently completed in January 2020. These were confirmed by BC to be false. The Panel has found that these certificates were false and it therefore finds this proved.
1 c. You amended/falsified original certificates which belonged to other Health professionals and presented them to two medical staffing agencies, Sirona Agency and/or Your World Recruitment Group as proof of your qualification.
61. This was admitted by the Registrant who admitted that she had changed two certificates changing the names to her own, knowing she had not done the courses. She admitted that she had given these false certificates to the agencies. BC, AR and WM all confirmed in their evidence that having checked the documentation that these certificates had been falsified and had not been issued to the Registrant. AR and WM confirmed that the Registrant had provided these certificates to them at the two agencies alleged, as found at 1 b. above. The Panel found that evidence to be clear, cogent and consistent, and found it credible and reliable. It concluded that this was proved, in that the original certificates had been falsified by the Registrant.
2. Your conduct in relation to particular 1 above was dishonest in that you intended to use the certificates as proof of courses you had not undertaken.
62. The Registrant admitted that she had been dishonest, that she had falsified the certificates as alleged and then passed them off as genuine to the agencies as alleged. She admitted that she had deliberately done so, that she had not done the training, and she accepted that the public would find her conduct to be dishonest. Applying the subjective and objective tests in Ivey, the Panel found that the Registrant knew she had been dishonest at the time, and that ordinary, decent people would find the conduct was dishonest. This Panel found this proved.
Decision on Misconduct
63. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in Roylance and Nandi. It has found a series of dishonest conduct by the Registrant. The Panel found that the conduct found proved breached fundamental tenets of the profession, namely trust, integrity and honesty. By falsifying training certificates and providing them to the agencies the Registrant repeated lied, and she accepted that in doing so she had placed patients at risk of harm. The Panel found that a reasonable member of the public would be most concerned by this conduct which the Panel found was very serious and fell far short of what would have been proper in the circumstances. The Panel found that the conduct, whether considered individually or collectively, amounted to misconduct.
64. The Panel found that the following HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) had been breached: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 6.1, 6.2, 9.1 and 9.2.
3.1 You must keep within your scope of practice by only practising in the areas you have appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for.
3.2 You must refer a service user to another practitioner if the care, treatment or other services they need are beyond your scope of practice.
3.3 You must keep your knowledge and skills up to date and relevant to your scope of practice through continuing professional development.
3.4 You must keep up to date with and follow the law, our guidance and other requirements relevant to your practice.
6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.
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.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.
65. The Panel concluded that the conduct found proved amounted to misconduct.
Impairment
66. The Registrant gave further evidence at the impairment stage and referred to her supplementary witness statement and a number of training certificates. She stated that she had reflected and accepted that she had caused “significant damage” and said she was remorseful.
67. The Registrant said that she had not worked since the allegations in 2021. She said that her personal circumstances had changed and would like to work two days a week. She said she had reflected and said that she was “more than ready” to return to work and had completed all the mandatory training. She said she had done some training on the issue of honesty. She said her dishonesty had been out of character.
68. The Registrant said that she now referred to a matrix which she had created to keep track of her training. She said this was one incident and she now updated her training and her conduct was not a pattern of behaviour and would not be repeated. She accepted she had falsified four certificates and said that she had always admitted it from “day one”. She said she understood the impact on colleagues. She accepted that trust was essential to health care.
69. The Registrant responded to Panel questions stating that she was motivated to falsify certificates by fear and personal pressures, including covid concerns. She said she was a caring and loving person and now has a better plan for her training. She said she had changed for the best. She said she would seek employment in a well controlled environment in a permanent role remembering that people come first.
70. Mr Oshunrinade provided written submissions. He submitted that the Registrant did not attempt to take away from the seriousness of the allegations and the wider implications of her misconduct. He submitted that the Registrant had been honest from the point she was provided with the allegations, and has expressed remorse. He referred to the earlier decision of the interim order panel on 12 November 2021 when the HCPC stated that this Registrant had given an honest account to that panel and that she had expressed significant remorse. He submitted that was persuasive. He submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was an isolated incident, a lapse of judgement. He reminded the Panel that the evidence from MB was that the agency had received positive feedback about the Registrant, and that she had a previously unblemished career. He submitted that her fitness to practise was not currently impaired.
71. Ms Collins provided written submissions and she referred to the relevant case law and the evidence. She submitted that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was currently impaired on both the personal and public interest grounds.
Decision on Impairment
72. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel about the HCPC Practice Note on impairment and he referred it to the guidance in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (admin). The Panel should look to the past and the future and consider the central issues of insight, remorse, remediation and the risk of repetition, and it must also be mindful of the wider public interest.
73. The Panel appreciate that dishonesty can be difficult to remediate, but it is remediable with sufficient, meaningful insight and reflection. The Panel noted that the Registrant has been unable to explain when she falsified any of these four certificates. On that basis, and given the period set out in the allegation found proved, the Panel was not able to conclude that this misconduct was an isolated incident, or a mere lapse of judgement, as asserted by the Registrant. Such a conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
74. The Panel considered the insight demonstrated by the Registrant was very limited and undeveloped. She has admitted the allegation and she has provided reflective pieces, and in her evidence she apologised and showed remorse. However, the Registrant’s reflective pieces do not deal meaningfully with her motivation to be dishonest and they do not express an understanding of her own conduct. The Registrant does not fully acknowledge that in falsifying the four certificates she placed her own interests ahead of the safety of patients and the reputation of her profession.
75. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant faced some difficult personal circumstances at the time. Although she admitted and apologised for her dishonest conduct, the Registrant was unable to clearly or meaningfully articulate when or why she falsified the four certificates. The Panel found that in her reflective pieces and in her live evidence, the Registrant was unable to explain clearly to any proper extent her motivation to be dishonest, and so was unable to reassure the Panel that she would not be dishonest in the future. The Panel concluded that the Registrant demonstrated very limited insight into her dishonest conduct, dishonesty which was related directly to her profession and to the safety of her practice.
76. The Registrant has demonstrated that she has now done all the mandatory training. However, the issue for the Panel is not the competency or the capability of the Registrant, it is not in question. The training now completed by the Registrant does not go to the issue of dishonesty, which is at the core of the misconduct found, and it does not go to the issue of insight or remediation of that dishonesty. The subsequent training does not remedy the dishonesty. As a result, the Panel found that there was a significant lack of evidence of remediation of the dishonest conduct.
77. The Panel concluded that, given the significant lack of insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant, there remains a real risk of repetition of the dishonest conduct.
78. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in Grant on assessing current impairment, in particular the four limbs expressed as follows:
“Do the finding show that fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that:
a) Has the Registrant in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act in a way so as to put service users 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?
d) Has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.”
79. Given the findings above, the Panel found that all four limbs were engaged. The Panel found that the Registrant has in the past and is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm, to bring the profession into disrepute, and to breach fundamental tenets of the profession, namely honesty and integrity. The Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly and given the lack of insight and remediation, the Panel concluded she is likely in the future to be dishonest.
80. On the public aspect of impairment, the Registrant has been found to have been dishonest and the misconduct occurred directly in relation to her professional practice. The public would be most concerned were the fitness to practise of the Registrant not found to be impaired. Not to find the Registrant’s fitness to practice impaired given the gravity of this case would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession, damage the reputation of the profession, and it would fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards.
81. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public interest aspects of impairment.
Submissions on Sanction
82. The Panel heard submissions on sanction from both parties. Mr Oshunrinade submitted a written submission and a further witness statement from the Registrant. He submitted that a Caution Order or Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate and proportionate. He submitted that the three-year interim conditions of practice order earlier imposed should be taken into account.
83. The Registrant gave evidence by formally adopting her witness statement. She gave further evidence about her insight and remediation and said she had “deep insight.” As a result, the Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the Registrant it is not entitled to revisit the issue of facts or impairment at this stage, nor may the Panel, and it must proceed with caution when assessing this evidence.
84. Ms Collins provided written submissions, referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and remained neutral on sanction.
Decision on Sanction
85. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and reminded it to act proportionately. He advised the Panel consider sanction in ascending order and that it must apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest. It should consider any aggravating and mitigating factors and be mindful of the public interest. The primary purpose of sanction is to protect the public and it must act proportionately. The existence of an interim order is a matter for the Panel to assess when considering the proportionate sanction.
86. The Panel was mindful of the need to act proportionately and considered what sanction to impose starting at the lowest level. It considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy, particularly paragraphs 40; 45-47; 51-53 and 56 - 58 dealing with breach of trust and dishonesty, and lack of insight and remediation.
87. The Panel found the following mitigating factors:
• The Registrant has apologised and showed remorse
• Cooperation with the fitness to practise process
• No previous fitness to practise history and previous good character
• Some, albeit limited, insight
• (Some limited evidence) difficult personal circumstances
88. The Panel found the following aggravating factors:
• Breach of trust in her professional role
• Deliberate, premeditated, active and repeated dishonesty
• Significant lack of insight
• Significant lack of remediation
89. Given the nature and gravity of the findings, the Panel concluded that to order mediation, to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the findings. The misconduct found is not of a minor nature. The Panel has found deliberate dishonesty, and that there is a risk of repetition and a lack of insight. The Panel considered paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy on Caution Orders. It found that none of the factors listed in that paragraph of the guidance applied in this case. Accordingly, to impose such orders would not be proportionate, would fail to protect the public or sufficiently mark the seriousness of the findings.
90. The Panel next considered conditions of practice, and considered the factors in paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Guidance. The Panel decided that a Conditions of Practice Order would not appropriately engage with the nature or the gravity of findings in this particular case, particularly as there is no issue about the Registrant’s professional competency. There is a finding of a real risk of repetition of the dishonesty. The Panel decided that conditions of practice could not sufficiently manage deliberate dishonesty, which is attitudinal in nature. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that conditions of practice would not be workable, realistic, appropriate, sufficient or proportionate and would fail to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case. Further, such an order would fail to properly address the public interest and would fail to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulator.
91. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order and considered paragraph 121 which states:
A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings
92. The Panel has found a significant lack of insight and remediation despite some three years having passed since these events. It has found a real risk of repetition and that the dishonesty was deliberate and repeated, and a serious breach of professional standards. The Registrant lied about undertaking significant and mandatory professional training which had patient safety at its heart. The Registrant misled two agencies, she breached trust in misleading her colleagues and the NHS. She misled her patients and placed them at risk of harm. She placed her own interests ahead of patient safety. She has demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of her dishonesty, conduct that was repeated and deliberate and which the Panel concluded was at the highest end of the spectrum of dishonesty.
93. In the circumstances of this case and with its findings in mind, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would not sufficiently protect the public and the wider public interest. It would not sufficiently mark the gravity of the dishonesty and the seriousness of the findings.
94. The Panel was mindful of paragraphs 130 and 131 of the Sanctions Guidance. It has found the dishonesty was serious, persistent and deliberate and is coupled with a significant lack of insight. As a consequence, the Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was appropriate and proportionate. Any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect to public, and would fail to uphold proper professional standards and fail to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
95. The Panel decided to impose a Striking Off Order.
Order
Order: The Registrar is directed to strike from the Register the name of Gloria Masango.
Notes
Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.
Interim Order
1. In light of its findings on Sanction, the Panel next considered an application by Ms Collins for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the Striking Off Order becomes operative.
2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders. He reminded the Panel of its earlier findings and that an Interim Order must be necessary to protect the public, or be otherwise in the public interest. The Panel must act proportionately and balance the interests of the Registrant with the need to protect the public.
3. The Panel was mindful of its earlier findings and concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public during the appeal period. The Panel decided that that it would be wholly incompatible with its earlier findings and with the Striking Off Order imposed to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order is not meantime necessary for the protection of the public, or otherwise in the public interest.
4. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on both public protection and public interest grounds. It decided that it is appropriate that Interim Order be imposed for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. When the appeal period expires this Interim Order will come to an end unless there has been an application to appeal. If there is no appeal the Striking Off Order shall apply when the appeal period expires.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Gloria Masango
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
09/07/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |
10/06/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
05/03/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
18/08/2023 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
12/05/2023 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
09/02/2023 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
12/08/2022 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
12/05/2022 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
12/11/2021 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Application | Interim Conditions of Practice |