Vuk Cirovic

Background

1. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner (“ODP”). He had previously worked for NHS Fife (“the Trust”) as a permanent member of staff until 30 June 2015. After that time, the Registrant was working via an agency, Robinson Medical Recruitment (“RMR”), carrying out agency shifts for the Trust on an ad-hoc basis. The Trust had two hospitals in Fife, Queen Margaret Hospital in Dunfermline (“QMH”) and the Victoria Hospital (“the Hospital”) in Kirkcaldy.

2. On 20 August 2021, the Registrant’s son was on an emergency list in Phase 3 theatres at the Hospital. The Registrant dishonestly gained entry to the restricted operating theatre complex (“theatre complex”) of the Hospital by allowing members of staff to think he was working that day when he was not. The Registrant made false statements about his swipe badge not working and that he was working a shift there, and that he changed into scrubs, hat, and mask.

3. On 23 August 2021, as a result of concerns raised by members of staff about the Registrant’s presence in the theatre complex, the Trust commenced an internal investigation. This concluded on 23 September 2021.

4. On 30 August 2021, the HCPC received a referral from the Theatre Manager of the Hospital regarding the alleged incident on 20 August 2021, which resulted in these proceedings.

5. The substantive hearing took place 15 – 22 January 2024 and 29 – 30 July 2024.

6. The panel found of the facts proved apart from Particular 1 a i and that they constituted misconduct.

7. The panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in respect of both personal and public components. The panel expressed its decision on impairment as follows:

“The panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct was capable of being remedied and recognised that it was difficult but not impossible to demonstrate remediation in cases involving dishonesty. The passage of time coupled with insight, reflection, and the fact that there had been no repetition in the period since the misconduct could, in some cases, amount to remediation. The panel, having heard his evidence, concluded that there was some evidence the Registrant had reflected on his misconduct and shown remorse. It accepted the Registrant’s evidence that if he were in the same situation again, he would act differently and seek the relevant permissions to accompany his son. The panel also considered that the Registrant had begun to develop insight into his misconduct, but it felt that it was not yet at the stage of full insight. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that there remained a risk of repetition, although this was not a high risk. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component. In relation to the public component the Panel was satisfied that, given the findings of dishonesty, public confidence in the ODP profession and its regulatory body would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel was also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case. It considered that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned if there was no finding of impairment in a case where a registrant’s misconduct involved dishonestly deceiving colleagues to gain access to a restricted area and persisting in that deception over a period of time on 20 August 2021. The panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.”

8. In relation to the finding that the Registrant had been dishonest, the panel stated that:
“The panel was satisfied that although the dishonesty in this case was deliberate and reckless, it had persisted for only a relatively short period of time on 20 August 2021. It had not been pre-meditated over a period of time. It was essentially a single isolated incident which arose at a time of anxiety and stress for the Registrant, and he had not been motivated by any financial or professional gain at the time. The panel concluded that the Registrant’s dishonesty was at the lower end of the scale of dishonest conduct”.

9. With regard to sanction, the panel imposed a Suspension Order as being appropriate and proportionate. In so doing, the panel stated that:
“The period of six months would allow the Registrant sufficient time in which to properly reflect on his misconduct and achieve proper insight. The panel was satisfied that such an Order would adequately protect the public from the risk of repetition in this case. The panel was also satisfied that a six-month Suspension Order would be sufficient to protect public confidence in the ODP profession and its regulatory body, while at the same time sending out a clear message to the profession that such behaviour will not be condoned”.

10. The panel considered that a reviewing panel might be assisted by the following:
• a reflective piece addressing the deficiencies in the Registrant’s insight in relation to his misconduct, in particular its impact on patients, colleagues, his profession, and the wider public interest.
• the Registrant’s attendance in person or remotely at the review hearing to assist the reviewing panel in relation to his insight.
Today’s hearing

11. The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle containing the decision of the panel at the substantive hearing and a reflective statement from the Registrant.

12. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Tobias took a neutral position as to whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired.

13. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Burton submitted that the Registrant had fully reflected on his misconduct, as demonstrated by his reflective statement, and that the Panel could be satisfied that it was very unlikely to be repeated.

The Panel’s decision

14. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

15. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of the allegations found proved at the substantive hearing.

16. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 [Admin] where it was stated 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”.

17. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had, since the imposition of the Suspension Order, reflected on his misconduct and acquired appropriate insight as to the significance and seriousness of what he had done wrong as set out in his reflections. In the Panel’s judgement, it considered that it was very unlikely that his misconduct would be repeated in the future.

18. With regard to the public component of impairment, the Panel noted that the panel at the substantive hearing was of the view that a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months was sufficient to address the public component of impairment and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator.

19. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired and that no further sanction was required upon expiry of the current Suspension Order.

The Suspension Order is due to expire on 28 January 2025.

History of Hearings for Vuk Cirovic