Kumarini Fonseka
Introduction
Kumarini Fonseka is a biomedical scientist who was struck off the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register in January 2024 after a panel found a pattern of repeated laboratory-practice misconduct between 2016 and 2019 — including releasing a test result that was still subject to verification despite a colleague’s warning that it was potentially erroneous, working unsupervised on analysers she had not been signed off to use, and errors in manual differential counts and blood-film review. The panel proved every factual particular except three, found misconduct rather than lack of competence, found current impairment with a likelihood of repetition and an appreciable risk of harm, and struck her off with an eighteen-month interim suspension to cover a possible appeal.
Background Information
Fonseka worked as a registered biomedical scientist in a United Kingdom hospital laboratory. The allegations spanned 2016 to 2019. On 1 August 2018 she inappropriately shared the results of a test subject to verification, shared them despite being told by Colleague A that the result was potentially erroneous and should not be shared until verified, and used Colleague A’s computer to view the results and intended to authorise results logged in as Colleague A. Across 2016-2018 the HCPC alleged she did not take sufficient time reviewing blood films and did not follow laboratory procedures for working with reagents, quality control checks and the storage of bone marrow samples. In March and April 2019 she used a full blood count analyser and a coagulation analyser unsupervised without sign-off — in one case on a sample that had already been tested, against management instructions — ignored a low reagent warning, and on 30 September 2019 performed a manual differential count without differentiating between lymphocytes and neutrophils or looking at the patient history. In November 2019 she reviewed a blood film and did not record the presence of abnormal cells or blast cells.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off after a three-year pattern of laboratory errors, with an unverified result released over a colleague’s warning. All factual particulars were proved except 1(c), 5(b) and 6(b); an 18-month interim suspension covers the appeal window.
The panel proved all the factual particulars except three limbs — 1(c) on the use of the colleague’s computer, 5(b) on the reagent warning, and 6(b) on the patient history — and found every proved matter amounted to misconduct rather than lack of competence. The actual harm the panel identified was concrete: the patient concerned in the November 2019 particular was unnecessarily called into hospital. The panel found current impairment on both the personal and public components, a likelihood of repetition, and an appreciable risk of harm. In mitigation it credited her full engagement with the proceedings; in aggravation it found the potential for patient harm, a failure to work in partnership with colleagues, lack of insight — her written reflections were found deficient — repeated misconduct, and the likelihood of repetition. It imposed the maximum eighteen-month interim suspension order pending appeal, reasoning that if she did not appeal the order would simply fall away when the striking-off took effect, but that her ability to practise should be restricted throughout any appeal given the findings.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The striking-off and interim suspension are recorded on the official HCPTS hearings site and on MedicWatch’s independent record of HCPC determinations, with Fonseka listed among struck-off practitioners on MedicWatch’s erasures list. The case stands out among laboratory-misconduct cases for the volume of proved particulars — spanning results handling, procedure compliance, equipment authorisation and reporting accuracy — and for the panel’s express finding that the failings were matters of attitude rather than competence alone.
Current Status
Fonseka was struck off the HCPC register by the decision dated 26 January 2024, subject to the interim suspension order lasting up to eighteen months while any appeal ran its course. Whether an appeal was lodged, and with what result, does not appear in the fetched record. The three particulars the panel found not proved — including the allegation that she intended to authorise results under a colleague’s login — form no part of the findings.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The register entry is gone and with it Fonseka’s ability to work as a biomedical scientist in the United Kingdom, in a profession where a single released-but-unverified result can set off a chain of clinical decisions. The 1 August 2018 incident — a warning from a colleague ignored — and the unnecessary hospital call-out in September 2019 are the two moments the determination preserves as the human measure of the pattern. Her record remains permanently searchable on the HCPTS site and on independent registers such as MedicWatch.