A "dishonest" doctor who admitted misleading other medics over Ebola nurse Pauline Cafferkey is guilty of serious misconduct, medical watchdogs have ruled.
Dr Hannah Ryan took the temperature of Scottish nurse Ms Cafferkey as they waited to go through Ebola virus screening at Heathrow Airport, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service heard.
It revealed the nurse had a high temperature of 38.2 centigrade, a warning sign for Ebola.
But instead of raising the alarm, a lower temperature of 37.2 centigrade was recorded on a screening form and Ms Cafferkey was allowed to travel home to Scotland.
She fell seriously ill with Ebola the next day.
Dr Ryan admitted misleading other medics when she "acquiesced" with the lower temperature being recorded on the screening form.
Five days later, Dr Ryan was found to have been "dishonest" in her account of her involvement in the incident in a telephone call with a consultant investigating the matter for Public Health England (PHE).
The medic, who qualified from Liverpool University in 2009, had denied her practise as a doctor is impaired through her actions.
Today, the three-member tribunal found against her, ruling her practise was impaired by her "serious misconduct."
Dr Bernard Herdan, chair of the panel, told Dr Ryan while her mistake was a "one-off", it was a "grave one" and others could have been put at "unwarranted risk of harm" by Ms Cafferkey leaving Heathrow.
And her attempt later to conceal her involvement was "deeply deplorable," the tribunal ruled.
Dr Ryan and Ms Cafferkey were part of a "selfless" group of UK medics who volunteered for dangerous and highly pressurised work in "horrendous" conditions, helping fight the Ebola outbreak in west Africa that left tens of thousands dead.
When they got back to the UK on December 28 2014 after two months away, they were "keen" to get back home to loved ones at Christmas time.
But the screening process by PHE medics at Heathrow Airport to ensure no one brought the virus back to the UK was "shambolic", with queues building up in the "crowded, noisy and chaotic" quarantined area, the hearing was told.
Trying to help PHE staff with the process, they agreed to take and record their own temperatures with the help of another nurse, Donna Wood.
Dr Ryan took Ms Cafferkey's temperature, which was 38.2C, a warning sign for the Ebola virus, leaving her in a state of "disbelief, fear and panic".
As the three medics considered the high temperature result, one of them said "Let's get out of here" and Ms Cafferkey's temperature was then recorded as 37.2C, the form was passed to PHE staff and the medics went on their way.
Ms Cafferkey returned to Glasgow, but the next day fell seriously ill and tested positive for Ebola.
In a telephone call from consultant Dr Nick Gent from PHE on January 2, the tribunal found Dr Ryan concealed her involvement in taking Ms Cafferkey's temperature, telling him that it was "normal" when it was in fact above 37.5 centigrade.
The tribunal found such were the stressful conditions, her judgement at Heathrow Airport may have been understandably clouded due to "extenuating circumstances", but not days later, and her conduct in regard to Dr Gent was dishonest.
The tribunal adjourned until tomorrow to consider what sanction, if any, Dr Ryan should suffer due to her misconduct.
She could face a warning, have conditions placed on her practise or be struck-off.
Donna Wood was last year suspended for two months after a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) panel found she was the one who had suggested putting the lower temperature on the form.
Ms Cafferkey was cleared by the NMC as her judgment at the airport had been so impaired by the developing illness that she could not be found guilty of misconduct.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel