Our case studies are based on real life fitness to practise concerns we have received
Type of concern: Failure to provide adequate care
Profession: Biomedical scientist
Standards
When these events happened, previous versions of the standards were in place (standards of proficiency for biomedical scientists 2017 and standards of conduct, performance and ethics 2012). To avoid confusion the most recent versions are shown.
Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (1 September 2024)
- 1.3 You must empower and enable service users, where appropriate, to play a part in maintaining their own health and well-being and support them so they can make informed decisions.
- 3.1 You must only practise in the areas where you have the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to meet the needs of a service user safely and effectively.
- 3.4 You must keep your knowledge and skills up to date and relevant to your scope of practice through continuing professional development.
- 3.5 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.
Standards of proficiency for biomedical scientists (1 September 2023)
-
1.1 identify the limits of their practice and when to seek advice or refer to another professional or service
-
14.3 work safely, including being able to select appropriate hazard control and risk management, reduction or elimination techniques, in a safe manner and in accordance with health and safety legislation
-
14.5 establish safe environments for practice, which appropriately manage risk
-
2.2 promote and protect the service user’s interests at all times
-
2.3 understand the importance of safeguarding by actively looking for signs of abuse, demonstrating understanding of relevant safeguarding processes and engaging in these processes where necessary
Case study
A professional body raised a concern that a biomedical scientist had acted beyond her scope of practice. The registrant ran a private laboratory and was contacted by a patient in relation to a number of health concerns, though they never met in person. According to the registrant, the patient was suffering from a number of complex health problems, including anxiety, depression and insomnia.
The registrant conducted a HPLC urine test on a urine sample provided to her by the patient, and her analysis of that sample was sent to the patient who subsequently approached his GP. On the basis of the registrant’s report, the patient was referred to a specialist in metabolic diseases at a London hospital. After assessing the patient, the specialist was concerned about the registrant’s actions in relation to her assessment of the patient and raised a concern with the relevant professional body, who contacted the HCPC.
The panel found that the registrant’s care of the patient fell short of the standards expected of a biomedical scientist and amounted to misconduct. Although the panel accepted that the registrant was well-meaning, they felt that the results and report of the urine analysis together with her emails to the patient had the potential to confuse the patient with its provision of a significant amount of misleading information. Indeed, it may have led to causing the patient anxiety and psychological harm.
The panel felt that the registrant’s conduct was remediable, although the registrant would need to recognise the error of her ways and unless she did so, there was a high likelihood of repetition. The panel found that, when questioned, the registrant’s evidence about her recent professional development was vague, and the panel also judged that the registrant was not familiar with current biomedical science practice and methodology. In the view of the panel, the registrant’s evidence demonstrated she was unclear and unconvincing about accreditation and quality assurance in respect of her laboratory, and these were contributory factors to the registrant’s inability to understand the proper limits to her scope of practice.
Measures we put in place to protect the public
The Conduct and Competence Committee imposed a twelve-month suspension order.
- Published:
- 14/01/2019
- Resources
- Learning material
- Subcategory:
- Case study
- Audience
- Registrants, Employers
- Profession
- Biomedical scientists