A nurse faces being suspended or struck off for concealing the fact that medic Pauline Cafferkey had a raised temperature before she tested positive for Ebola.
The raised temperature, noted in December 2014, should have triggered concern about infection of the deadly virus but Donna Wood suggested that a lower temperature be recorded on Ms Cafferkey's screening form, a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) panel found.
The panel, sitting in Stratford, east London, ruled that Ms Wood's fitness to practice has been impaired as all three misconduct charges against her were found proven.
Ms Wood and Ms Cafferkey, who were volunteer nurses returning from Ebola-stricken Sierra Leone, were heading through passport control at Heathrow airport when then their group was pulled aside for screening.
The panel found that Ms Wood was aware that Ms Cafferkey's temperature, which had been measured twice at 38.2C and 38.3C (101F), was above the nationally-set threshold, but suggested that a lower temperature of 37.2C (99F) be recorded on her screening form so the group could leave the "uncomfortable" and "chaotic" area more quickly.
A temperature above 37.5C (100F) required further assessment by doctors at the Public Health England (PHE) screening room.
Ms Wood's lawyer Ben Rich told the hearing that these had been "exceptional" circumstances concerning someone who had a 30-year unblemished record.
Najrul Khasru, chairman of the panel, said it had fully accepted that Ms Wood's desire to get out of the area quickly was the "primary motivation" of her dishonesty.
The panel will announce a decision on sanctions, which could include suspension or being struck off, on Friday.
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