Jane Hazell

 

1. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, both parties agreed that there should be some redactions to the HCPC bundle, as well as some material which should be unredacted. This amended bundle was provided to the Panel in substitution for a bundle which had already been read by the Panel. 

 

2. The Panel confirmed that they had put out of their minds everything they had read which was subsequently redacted, and that this would play no role in its deliberations.

 

 

3. The Registrant was employed as a Radiographer at York Neuroimaging Centre (YNiC) from 01 July 2016 to 23 July 2018. 

 

4. YNiC is a research centre at which MRI scans are performed for the purposes of research linked to the Psychology Department at the University of York. As part of this research, volunteers (referred to as participants) participate in scans. Person A, a Research Associate in the Psychology Department at the University of York, was one such participant. 

 

5. On 28 June 2018, TM (YNiC Centre Director) and AG (Manager of Imaging Services), as well as other individuals, received an email from Person A. Within the email, Person A raised concerns about the Registrant’s conduct. NW, Psychology Department Manager at the University of York, conducted an internal investigation into the concerns raised by Person A. On 5 July 2018, the HCPC received a referral from YNiC.

 

 

6. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant denied all of the factual particulars. 

 

7. The Panel had before it a HCPC bundle and a bundle from the Registrant, which included her witness statement. 

 

8. The Panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses:

 

i. Person A, Research Associate in the Psychology Department of the University of York;

 

ii. AG, Manager of Imaging Services at the University of York;

 

iii. NW, Depart Manager in the Psychology Department of the University of York;

 

iv. RH, PhD Researcher at the University of York.

 

9. The Registrant also gave oral evidence. 

 

10. The Panel took into account the submissions on facts by Mr Keating on behalf of the HCPC, and Ms Herbert on behalf of the Registrant. Ms Herbert referred to the case of Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974, including a number of authorities referred to in that case. 

 

11. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to the case of Dutta as a case to be applied by the Panel. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the Registrant should be taken to be a person of good character, in that she has not had previous regulatory findings against her of a similar nature. Further, she is entitled that her good character be taken into account by the Panel when considering her credibility and her propensity to act as alleged.

 

12. The Panel was aware that the burden of proof is entirely on the HCPC to the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. 

 

 

13. The Panel took into account the evidence of Person A, noting that he was the only live witness to the event in question, although he had spoken about it to RH. His evidence was that the event in question occurred in February 2017. 

 

14. The Panel considered the email written by Person A dated 28 June 2018, and noted that this was the first occasion in which Person A had set out his concerns about the Registrant to senior management. He raised a number of concerns in that email, but there was no reference to a complaint about the Registrant discussing an anomaly on a scan. 

 

15. The Panel also took into account that when Person A was interviewed by NW on 10 July 2018 in a formal investigation meeting, he stated that he had been scanned in February 2017 and the Registrant had told him, with other people in the room, that he had nasal polyps. The Panel noted that Person A did not link the alleged comments made by the Registrant to a specific scan being shown to him. However, in his witness statement dated 18 March 2020, he stated that the Registrant proceeded to bring up images of his scan after he had had it done to show it to him and explained that he had nasal polyps. 

 

16. The Registrant, a Radiographer of some 30 years’ experience, denied that she had told Person A he had nasal polyps or that she had brought up his scan to show him. Her evidence was that a colleague, DC, had asked her for ear plugs, which are available for participants while they are in the scanner due to the noise generated by the scanner during image acquisition. The Registrant’s evidence was that DC said he wanted ear plugs as he was having to share a room with Person A at an upcoming conference and, in a joking manner, commented that Person A snored badly. The Registrant’s evidence was that when Person A came out of the scanner, out of concern for him she had suggested that he see his GP as he could potentially have nasal polyps, as this could cause snoring. There was a light-hearted conversation and she was not referring to any particular scan of his. The Registrant’s evidence was that Person A had been scanned at least 60 times in two years and that any anomaly seen on a scan would have been sent for referral to a medical professional. 

 

17. The Panel also took into account that Person A’s own evidence was that he had had 50-60 scans prior to the scan he referred to in February 2017, and that he had not been contacted about any anomaly which had been identified. The Panel also took into account that Person A remembered having shared accommodation with DC in a conference in Florida, and therefore there was a degree of overlap with those aspects of the Registrant’s evidence. 

 

18. The Panel also took into account that Person A’s evidence was that he did not make an appointment with his GP to discuss nasal polyps; rather, he chose to bring the subject up in another appointment for another matter at a later date. There was no evidence of any sense of urgency in Person A seeking medical advice as a result of a conversation with the Registrant about nasal polyps, which might reasonably have been expected. Person A’s evidence was additionally that he had never in fact been diagnosed with nasal polyps. The scan itself, referred to by Person A, was not in evidence before the Panel. The Panel also took into account that Person A did not raise his allegation about the Registrant discussing an anomaly on his scan until the following year. The Panel was not persuaded by his explanation that he found it more difficult to raise matters of a personal nature like this, as the evidence, which he accepted, was that he raised a number of issues about the Registrant before the email of 28 June 2018. 

 

19. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that the HCPC had not satisfied the Panel on the balance of the probabilities in respect of Particular 1. 

 

20. The Panel found this Particular not proved. 

 

 

21. The Panel took into account the evidence of Person A, noting that he was the only live witness to the event in question. Person A’s evidence was that a few months after the event alleged in Particular 1, perhaps in April 2017, he was working in the student office adjacent to the open plan working area, and overheard the Registrant standing between the staff office and open plan area joking to someone about his (Person A’s) nasal polyps. He stated that he possibly did not see the Registrant but would recognise her voice. He was not able to say how he knew she was talking about him; either she said his name or she was specific enough for him to know she was talking about him. He could not recall who she was talking to in the staff office. 

 

22. The Registrant’s evidence was that there was a time in which she might have been discussing nasal polyps. She had a female colleague who had experienced an incident where her nasal polyps had prolapsed. Her friend had told her about this in a light-hearted and amusing way, and she related that story as an amusing anecdote. However, she was not talking about Person A. 

 

23. The Panel took into account that this was a conversation overheard by Person A. It was clear to the Panel that he could not see the Registrant and they were separated by a wall or door. The Panel noted that he was sure the conversation was about him, but he was not sure that he was named at all, which in the Panel’s view weakened his evidence. 

 

24. When Person A referred to this allegation in his investigation meeting on 10 July 2018, there was no reference to the names of others present who may have heard the Registrant and it was only mentioned in a brief manner without detail. The incident was not mentioned in his email dated 28 June 2018. 

 

25. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that the HCPC had not satisfied the Panel on the balance of the probabilities in respect of Particular 2. 

 

26. The Panel found this Particular not proved. 

 

 

27. The Panel took into account the evidence of RH, noting that she was the only live witness to the event in question. This incident was first raised relatively briefly in a few lines as an issue by Person A in his email of 28 June 2018, alongside a number of other issues raised against the Registrant. The issue was not raised by RH in her own words at that time, but was included in a body of other allegations by Person A. 

 

28. RH was interviewed by NW in an investigation meeting dated 16 July 2018, in which RH raised this issue. The Panel considered the note of this meeting, and noted that the content had been contributed to by track changes by other persons apparently in the meeting, as well as RH. As a result, the Panel considered that this document was somewhat unclear due to being poorly recorded. In addition, there was further inconsistency in the record, in that the Panel noted that in that meeting it was reported that RH had stated that she herself had left the Siemens scanner room to go and look at the anomaly on a scan taken on the other scanner, known as the GE scanner. However, RH corrected this record in the notes of the investigation meeting by stating that the Registrant herself had left the Siemens room to investigate. 

 

29. RH’s evidence was that the Registrant left the Siemens scanner to go to the GE scanner room to check the anomaly on the scan taken on that machine, and from there she transported the image to the Siemens machine which RH herself was using. 

 

30. The Registrant’s evidence was that she was in the console room working on a computer and not undertaking scanning, which RH was in fact doing. RH agreed with this. 

 

31. The Registrant accepted that she left the Siemens scanner room for a short time after receiving an email from MS, a prospective PhD student, saying he had seen something on a scan and which the Registrant needed to check. The Registrant stated that she had looked at the scan, but then sent it to the server and deleted the image from the GE scanner. She did not transfer it to the Siemens scanner to look at it there. 

 

32. Both RH and the Registrant agreed that there were two others in the room. RH’s evidence was that they were Masters students, while the Registrant did not know their status. The Panel considered that RH was a credible witness who did her best to assist the Panel with her evidence. However, it noted that there was an inconsistency in parts of her evidence. Firstly, in the investigation meeting notes dated 16 July 2018, it was recorded that she stated she herself left the room and not the Registrant, and then she corrected this by way of a tracked change on the document to state that it was the Registrant that left the room. There was a second inconsistency in that RH stated in her evidence that she had not been trained to use the Siemens machine by the date of the event in Particular 3, but then accepted that she had been signed off as trained on 6 June 2018. The Panel took into account that RH stated at the start of the evidence that she has limited recollection of events due to the passage of time. The Panel also noted that the two Masters students in the room were not spoken with or interviewed to see if they had seen or heard the Registrant discussing the scan on the MRI console screen, which was close to them. As such, the Panel considered that the evidence before it was insufficient to satisfy it on the balance of probabilities that the particular was proved. 

 

33. The Panel therefore found Particular 3 not proved. 

 

 

34. The Panel took into account the MRI Safety Manual for Operators dated December 2017, which was exhibited by AG and which stated clearly that during scanning, at least two operators must remain in the controlled areas while a participant or patient is in the inner controlled area, namely the scan room itself. The evidence of AG was that this version would have been in place since October 2016, as seen from changes set out in the index, and would have been part of the documents which the Registrant read and signed as part of her induction. The two operators had to be trained to at least Level 1 and Level 0. 

 

35. The evidence of AG was that on two occasions early on in her time at YNiC, he had to reiterate to the Registrant the importance of not leaving only one operator in the scan room while an MRI scan was in progress. He stated that the reason the Registrant gave was that she needed to go the toilet, to get a drink, or to leave only for a few minutes. AG also stated that on a third occasion he gave her what he considered to be a verbal warning when he saw her do it a third time. AG’s evidence was that if the Registrant needed a comfort break, she could seek someone to replace her while she was away from the scanning room, and that it would be relatively easy to find someone by using the telephone in the scan room. 

 

36. In his witness statement, Person A stated that he was left by the Registrant in the scan room “on more than 3 or 4 occasions”, and this was reflected in his oral evidence. However, he did not give dates or any further specific information, nor was there any detail in his email dated 28 June 2018. 

 

37. In addition, in her witness statement RH stated that she had been left in the scan room by the Registrant “roughly a dozen times”. However, in her investigation meeting on 16 July 2018, she was recorded as having stated that this was “half a dozen”, and in cross-examination she accepted that if she had said half a dozen at the time, then that was what had occurred. 

 

38. In her evidence, the Registrant accepted that if the MRI Safety Manual for Operators had been part of her induction, then she would have read it when she started at YNiC. The Registrant denied that AG had spoken to her on any occasion about leaving the MRI suite. Her evidence was that it was not easy to find a replacement and in any event, she was often put on the rota to work by herself. She did accept that she left RH in the scan room as set out in the Panel’s reasoning in relation to the event alleged in Particular 3. The Registrant pointed to an email from TM, dated 6 May 2017, which suggested that the rule that two operators were required at all times during a scan had been relaxed. 

 

39. The Panel considered the email of 6 May 2017 in the context of all of the evidence. The MRI Safety Manual for Operators was clear and AG, Person A, and RH were all unanimous that there was no exception to the rule that two operators were required to be present at all times during a scan. In light of this, as well as the clear policy, the Panel decided that on the balance of probabilities, the email of 6 May 2017 was an attempt to tighten up the practice of all operators by emphasising the importance of the policy. As such, the Panel was not persuaded that the rule as set out in the MRI Safety Manual for Operators ceased to apply at any point, and it concluded that the Registrant was therefore bound by it. 

 

40. The Panel considered the evidence of Person A but concluded that it was vague and without specificity as to dates or actual events in terms of what occurred, and the Panel was unable to attribute any real weight to it. With regard to RH’s general evidence about being left by the Registrant on a number of occasions, stating that this was some six occasions in 2018, then twelve in her witness statement, then reverting to six in agreement with her initial statement in 2018, the Panel again was unable to give it any real weight due to the inconsistency in her evidence, and considered that it lacked cogency. 

 

41. The Registrant accepted that she left RH in the scan room on or around 12 June 2018 without ascertaining whether the other two people in the room were qualified operators. Additionally, the Panel considered the evidence of AG. While there was no documentary evidence of his interventions with the Registrant on the first two occasions or any record of a formal verbal warning, the Panel considered that AG was clear and consistent on this part of his evidence. AG accepted that he was not able to give a formal verbal warning as, at the time, he was not the Registrant’s manager. However, he presented generally as a meticulous and clear witness, and the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that AG spoke to the Registrant on three occasions when he saw that she had left the scan room without ensuring two operators remained. In coming to this decision, the Panel took into account that the Registrant herself accepted that she had left the scan room with only one other person remaining to go to the toilet, on more than one occasion and albeit for a short time, expressing the view that in doing so there was minimal risk. The Registrant also accepted that she left the room on the occasion referred to in Particular 3. The Panel decided that these admissions corroborated the evidence of AG. 

 

42. The Panel therefore found Particular 4 proved on the balance of probabilities. 

 

 

43. The Panel considered whether the facts found proved in respect of Particular 4 constituted misconduct. 

 

44. Mr Keating submitted that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. Mr Keating submitted that the Registrant had breached Standards 6.1 and 6.2 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, as well as Standards 14 and 14.2 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers. Mr Keating submitted that the facts found proved were serious and the Registrant had broken the rules despite being warned and reminded about them. 

 

45. Ms Herbert submitted that the Registrant’s actions did not fall sufficiently below the standards expected of her as to constitute misconduct, and as such were not sufficiently serious, taking into account the context. Some of the factors referred to by Ms Herbert were that the Registrant only left for short periods, for comfort breaks, that it was not a matter of routine, and that she did not leave RH entirely alone, as she was with two Masters students who could have assisted if there was an emergency. 

 

46. The Panel took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1AC 311 and Nandi v GMC EWHC 2317. The Panel bore in mind that the issue of misconduct was a matter for its judgement, that there was no burden of proof at this stage, and that the conduct in question must be serious enough to constitute misconduct. A breach of the relevant standards was not necessarily in itself determinative of whether there was misconduct.

 

47. The Panel examined the Standards which were in force at the time of the matters found proved and decided that the Registrant had breached the following standards:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48. The Panel took into account that the rule requiring the presence of two trained operators while a scan was in progress existed to manage risk, both to participants or patients, as well as the operators themselves. The MRI scanners at YNiC utilised a 3T magnet and the risks of the environment had to be borne in mind. For example, if a participant or patient suffered a medical emergency whilst a scan was in progress and had to be removed from the scanner quickly, two trained operators were required to manage the situation. If one trained operator became unwell, there needed to be another trained operator present in case there was an emergency. It was not reasonable to expect that the two Masters students, in the incident with RH, would be sufficiently capable of managing an emergency, as they were untrained to enter the scan room, and there were indeed risks arising out of the presence of untrained people in the vicinity of the magnet if there was an emergency. 

 

49. The Registrant was one of only two Level 3 operators in the Centre and the only clinical Radiographer. As a senior member of staff who trained others and had contributed to the renewing of the MRI Safety Manual for Operators, as well as other policies, she should have set an example for other staff. However, she repeatedly broke the rules and as such there was a pattern of behaviour. This was despite AG’s warnings and the email reminder of 06 May 2017 about the two-operator rule. 

 

50. In light of the risks involved, the context set out above, and the Registrant’s repeated behaviour, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s behaviour fell so far short of what was expected in the circumstances as to constitute misconduct. 

 

 

51. Mr Keating submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the basis of both the personal and public components. He referred to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Mr Keating submitted that it was significant that the Registrant had denied Particular 4 and, while a denial does not necessarily mean that she cannot demonstrate insight, she had not shown insight into the potential risks caused by her actions and there was no reassurance that she would not repeat her behaviour. 

 

52. Ms Herbert submitted the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No harm had been caused by her actions, nor was there any “near miss”, and she had been practising safely and effectively since with no repetition. Ms Herbert referred to several positive testimonials which attested to the Registrant’s professionalism and competence. Further, there was nothing particular with regard to the case which engaged the public component of impairment. 

 

53. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to CHRE v (1) NMC (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel was aware that impairment was a matter for its own independent judgement and that public protection and the wider public interest should be considered. 

 

54. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had been considered a person of good character. 

 

55. The Panel took into account the questions formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman report, as set out in the case of Grant, which are presented in Grant as a test of impairment and ask whether a practitioner:

 

 

 

 

56. The Panel decided that the Registrant had acted in all the ways as set out in these questions by her past actions, taking into account its finding on misconduct. 

 

57. The Panel considered that while the Registrant had denied Particular 4, this did not necessarily preclude her from demonstrating insight and that this was a matter for the Panel to assess. However, the Panel noted the Registrant’s evidence at the fact stage, which was that her absences from the scanning environment (when it was not permitted because there were not two operators present) created a minimal risk. The Panel considered that the Registrant minimised the risk. 

 

58. Further, there was no evidence that the Registrant had reflected in any meaningful way upon her actions, nor had she presented to the Panel any understanding of the circumstances which existed at the time and how to prevent recurrence if she found herself in a similar position in the future. While the Registrant has been working successfully since and relied on positive references, the Panel concluded that the references did not deal with the conduct found proved specifically, nor did they confirm that their authors were aware of the allegations faced by the Registrant. Therefore, the Panel considered them somewhat less helpful than they otherwise may have been. The Panel, however, took into account that the Registrant had been working successfully since 2018, albeit in a less senior role as a locum Radiographer and not in a managerial capacity. 

 

59. The Registrant showed limited insight into the identified shortcomings in her practice. There was no evidence of any meaningful reflection on what she had done, why it was wrong, and what she should do to prevent its recurrence. The Panel was not confident that she had fully understood the responsibility held by senior members of staff to set an example of model safety practice to less experienced colleagues. Further, there was no evidence before the Panel that she had undertaken any remedial action to address the matters found proved, such as steps taken or any plan put in place to ensure that they would not recur; for example, the Panel had no evidence before it that she had completed any relevant Continuing Professional Development (CPD) or training which would reassure it that the risk of recurrence was low. While the Panel recognised that the Registrant had been working well with no complaint in the intervening period, this was not enough on its own to address the limited insight into the concerns or lack of evidence of attempts to address them specifically. The Panel was also conscious that the Registrant’s role as a locum Radiographer was substantially different to her more senior position at YNiC, which had required her to lead other staff and act as a role model to colleagues in relation to safety policy and practice. As such, the Panel decided that there was a real risk that the Registrant could repeat her actions if placed in a similar working environment and thus behave in the ways set out in Grant in the future in the same or similar circumstances. 

 

60. The Panel was therefore of the view that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the basis of the personal component. 

 

61. The Panel next considered the wider public interest. 

 

62. With regard to the misconduct, the Panel was of the view that it was serious. The Registrant was a senior qualified member of staff and had a duty to safeguard against what was a significant risk of harm, and to set an example to others whom she had trained or who relied on her as the more senior operator when a scan was in progress. The risks to participants or those junior operators whom she left in the scanning environment were potentially high in the circumstances. The Panel decided that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to maintain confidence in the profession, would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. 

 

63. The Panel therefore found the Registrant to be impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component. 

 

 

64. Following the Panel’s decision on misconduct and impairment, which was handed down on 26 March 2025, and prior to hearing submissions on what, if any, sanction to impose, the Registrant submitted a written reflection dated 26 March 2025. The Panel took this document into account. 

 

65. At the outset of his submissions, Mr Keating informed the Panel that the Registrant had a previous regulatory finding against her in 2011, when she was found to have bullied and made derogatory comments about a co-worker during her employment. Misconduct was found proved, her fitness to practise was found impaired, and she was given a Caution for a period of two years. 

 

66. Mr Keating also informed the Panel that in June 2021, there had been a substantive hearing in respect of the Allegation before this Panel. It concluded on 14 June 2021 and an interim suspension order was imposed for a period of 18 months along with a final Suspension Order. However, the decision was quashed by the High Court on 19 October 2021 after an appeal by the Registrant, and therefore the interim suspension order had been in place for a period of four months and five days. 

 

67. Mr Keating reminded the Panel of the general principles of sanction, addressed the question of mitigating and aggravating factors, and referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (2019). Mr Keating told the Panel that the HCPC’s position was that the sanction to be imposed was a matter for the Panel’s own judgement.

 

68. Ms Herbert made oral submissions to the Panel. She highlighted the general principles which should be applied and aspects of the Registrant’s written reflection, and referred to her good practice since the time of the misconduct, including that she had been in similar situations but had ensured she had cover when she needed to leave the scan room. The Registrant had been working at Airedale NHS Foundation Trust at the time of the 2021 hearing, and when she was suspended her employer was aware of this, as were the authors of the testimonials. Thus they were aware of the HCPC allegations which she was facing. Ms Herbert submitted that the Caution received in 2011 should not be taken into account considering the length of time since it had expired and that the misconduct found proved then was not of a similar nature to the findings made by this Panel. Ms Herbert submitted that there was no real risk of repetition. No order would be appropriate, or alternatively a caution order. A conditions of practice order may be appropriate, but in light of the reflection may not be needed. Any more restrictive sanction would be disproportionate.

 

69. The Panel took into account the HCPC Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor advised that while it was appropriate for the Panel to be aware that the Registrant had been the subject of an interim suspension order before the decision of that panel had been quashed in 2021 by the High Court, the fact that the Registrant had been the subject of an interim suspension order was not relevant to the nature or the duration of any sanction which this Panel may impose. For example, the Panel must not discount the duration of any sanction or reduce a sanction to take into account the length served. In addition, while the Panel had been made aware that the previous substantive decision had imposed a substantive suspension order, this was irrelevant to today’s Panel, which had made its own decisions on the evidence before it and was considering a sanction on the basis of its own decision on the Registrant’s impairment of her fitness to practise made during this hearing. 

 

70. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgement and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to uphold the public interest, which includes protection of the public. Further, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order it makes is the least restrictive order that would uphold the public interest.

 

71. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s written reflection. It took into account the Registrant’s clarificatory statement that she was not a manager at YNiC, although she accepted that she was in a level of seniority to other colleagues as a qualified Radiographer. The Panel also accepted, having been given further information since the decision on impairment, that the authors of the testimonials before it were aware of the HCPC allegations. 

 

72. The Panel was of the view that the following were mitigating factors:

 

i. the insight and remediation demonstrated and the remorse expressed, albeit after the decision on impairment had been handed down;

 

ii. positive testimonials;

 

iii. a sustained period of safe practice spanning several years since her employment at YNiC.

 

73. The Panel was of the view that the following were aggravating factors: 

 

i. the misconduct took place over a period of time and was a pattern, despite being warned to desist;

 

ii. the potential for significant harm to participants and junior colleagues;

 

74. The Panel took into account all of the evidence and the submissions before it, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors. 

 

75. The Panel considered the fact that, although late in proceedings and seemingly in response to the Panel’s decision on impairment, the Registrant had produced a written reflection. The Panel considered the circumstances of its submission and whether this reduced the weight to be given to it because it appeared to have been submitted in response to the Panel’s decision, rather than proactively. In exercising its judgement, the Panel decided to give it weight because the Registrant has expressed clearly her acceptance of her wrongdoing and how she has ensured it has not occurred in the seven years which have elapsed since the time of the misconduct. 

 

76. The Panel was also reassured that the testimonials were written with knowledge of the HCPC allegations, and therefore the Panel was able to give them more weight. They attested to the Registrant’s professionalism and good practice. 

 

77. The Panel considered that the Registrant has shown insight in her reflection. She acknowledged her wrongdoing, expressed regret, expressed an understanding of the safety implications of her misconduct, and had shown what steps she has taken to ensure the misconduct has not been repeated in the intervening years. The Panel was further reassured that the risk of repetition was low by the Registrant’s explanation that she completes an annual safety review by a senior physicist as part of her current role. 

 

78. The Panel considered the Registrant’s written reflection in the context of the positive testimonials, including from a Consultant Radiologist who speaks highly of her, and the passage of several years since the misconduct with no further or similar concerns.

 

79. In light of these factors, the Panel considered that the Registrant had now demonstrated sufficient insight into her misconduct, as well as a clear understanding of how to ensure it does not recur. In conjunction with the evidence about the Registrant’s good practice since, the Panel decided that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the risk of repetition was low. However, there remained a wider public interest concern as set out in the Panel’s determination on impairment. 

 

80. The Panel considered the previous Caution imposed in 2011, and was aware that it may take it into account for the purposes of its decision on sanction. However, the Panel decided that it had no meaningful bearing on this case because the Caution Order ended in 2013, over a decade ago, and was in regard to matters which had no relation to the misconduct in this case. 

 

81. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, it would be inappropriate to take no action. It would be insufficient to maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession.

 

82. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The Panel took the view that the misconduct was not isolated, in that there was a pattern of four occasions which it had found as fact. However, it was limited to one issue, namely leaving the control room during the operation of the scanner by another junior colleague who should not have been left alone. While there was a risk of harm, there was no actual harm caused or indeed any evidence of a near miss. There is a low risk of repetition in this case and the Registrant has undertaken remedial steps. 

 

83. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that a Caution Order would be appropriate, necessary, and sufficient to satisfy the public interest concerns in this case and mark that the misconduct was unacceptable both to the Registrant and the wider profession.

 

84. In terms of the duration, the Panel concluded that a period of two years would be proportionate and necessary to reflect the risk of significant harm and that the Registrant had been warned about not leaving the console room a number of times but still continued to do so. 

 

85. The Panel did go on to consider whether a condition of practice order would be necessary to address the public interest in this case, but considered that it would be disproportionate in light of the remedial steps undertaken by the Registrant and her record of good practice over a number of years. On this basis, a suspension order would also be disproportionate and punitive. 

 

86. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Caution Order for a period of two years. 

 

87. That concludes this determination.