Select country
Membership information
0800 561 9000
Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Refine my search

An allegation of dishonesty

Post date: 01/07/2022 | Time to read article: 3 mins

The information within this article was correct at the time of publishing. Last updated 01/09/2022

A suspected forged training certificate lands Dr U before a Medical Council hearing – find out how Medical Protection supported her throughout the case. By Francis O’Toole, Legal Adviser at Medical Protection.

Dr U, a specialist trainee, submitted a mandatory training module certificate to her locum agency, which purported to show that she had completed an online course called mandatory training. It was alleged by a deputy postgraduate dean that Dr U had falsified the certificate by changing the date on a previous certificate. She had not completed the training or received a genuine certificate.

The dean referred Dr U to the Medical Council. Dr U contacted Medical Protection for assistance.

How Medical Protection assisted

Dr U accepted that she had forged the mandatory training certificate. By way of explanation she explained that her parents were in intense financial difficulties and she was very worried about the impact of this, as they were struggling to cope with repeated demands for money. She was worried most of all that they would lose their home. 

As a result of these pressures and stressors, Dr U explained that she registered with locum agencies so that she could do additional work, thereby earning some extra money to try and alleviate the pressures on her parents. When registering for one agency she was asked to complete mandatory training and to produce evidence once she had done so. Rather than take the time to complete the training, which would have taken her no more than a couple of hours, she foolishly decided to forge a certificate to make it look like she had completed the training. She had done similar training a year previously and as the certificate was saved as a Word document, she simply amended the dates to give the false impression it covered her for the relevant year.

From the moment Dr U approached Medical Protection and explained what had happened, she was given helpful clear advice on coming clean, and being honest and open about what she had done, along with what she needed to do to put things right. Dr U was advised to begin the process of reflection and to write a contemplative piece. Dr U was also advised on the importance of insight and remediation. We advised that in addition, Dr U should go on a highly regarded ethics course. The course took place over three days and was aimed at providing awareness and responsibility around establishing and maintaining professional ethics.   

In addition, we obtained a number of testimonials from colleagues of Dr U, who all spoke extremely highly of her and explained among other things that her actions were completely out of character. 

In preparation for the hearing, we therefore had a significant amount of remediation evidence and a number of impressive of testimonials, some of whom were prepared to take the trouble and attend the hearing in person and give evidence. 


In this case, because of the persuasive remediation evidence and early admission of guilt, the tribunal were persuaded to make a finding of no impairment. This is most unusual in a case of dishonesty: honesty and integrity are the bedrock of the profession and a finding of dishonesty ordinarily results in a finding of impairment and the imposition of a sanction at the severe end of the spectrum.

In this case, however, the tribunal explained that they were satisfied that the doctor had demonstrated real insight into her misconduct and had taken proactive steps to remediate as evidenced by her participation in the ethics course. They were satisfied that a finding of impairment was not necessary in this case. Had Dr U been found to be impaired, it seemed inevitable that she would have had her registration suspended. The consequence of this would have been the loss of her training number and, in short, the end of her career.

Learning points 

While a finding of no impairment was made, the tribunal did impose a warning on Dr U’s registration. In the circumstances there was no resistance to this on the part of Dr U and it no doubt will serve as a timely reminder for the rest of her career how important honesty and integrity is to the profession and to the wider public interest.

Share this article

New site feature tour

Introducing an improved
online experience

You'll notice a few things have changed on our website. After asking our members what they want in an online platform, we've made it easier to access our membership benefits and created a more personalised user experience.

Why not take our quick 60-second tour? We'll show you how it all works and it should only take a minute.

Take the tour Continue to site

Medicolegal advice
0800 561 9090
Membership information
0800 561 9000

Key contact details

Should you need to contact us, our phone numbers are always visible.

Personalise your search

We'll save your profession in the "I am a..." dropdown filter for next time.

Tour completed

Now you've seen all of the updated features, it's time for you to try them out.

Continue to site
Take again