Shanthiratne Semage
Introduction
Shanthiratne Semage is a former UK biomedical scientist who was struck off the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register on 22 November 2023, at the second review of a case built on longstanding cervical screening competence failures. The review panel found that he remained impaired, had been out of practice for more than five years, had undertaken little meaningful professional development and had shown no progress toward safe practice, and concluded that extending or varying his conditions would not protect the public or lead to meaningful remediation.
Background Information
Semage worked as a biomedical scientist, one of the laboratory professions the HCPC registers in the United Kingdom. Biomedical scientists in cervical screening are responsible for examining slide samples for cellular abnormalities, work that is governed by national guidelines on both the detection of high-grade and low-grade abnormalities and the volume of samples a scientist must review to stay current. His case arose from the years 2017 and 2018 and was found at a substantive hearing to amount to a lack of competence — a category distinct from misconduct, directed at inability rather than dishonesty.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off at a second review over unresolved cervical cytology competence failures. The underlying findings were regulatory findings of lack of competence made by an HCPC panel on the civil standard; the November 2023 review decided the endpoint of the case. No dishonesty or misconduct finding was made against him.
The allegation was that Semage did not consistently meet national guidelines for detecting high-grade and low-grade abnormalities in cervical cytology slides, and did not review the required number of samples between 2017 and 2018. A substantive panel found that this amounted to a lack of competence and that his fitness to practise was impaired. Competence cases of this kind matter because screening performance directly affects whether abnormalities in a patient’s sample are detected and referred.
The case then moved through the review process. At the second review, the panel found that he remained impaired because he had been out of biomedical science practice for more than five years, had undertaken little meaningful professional development in that time, and had not demonstrated progress toward safe practice. The panel concluded that further conditions or a further suspension would not resolve the concerns, and directed that his name be struck off the register.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence of the review was the end of his registration with the HCPC. The panel’s reasoning followed the standard arc of a competence case that has not repaired: a substantive finding, a period under conditions, and successive reviews that look for evidence of remediation. Where the evidence shows a practitioner has left the profession and has not maintained the training required for safe screening work, panels conclude that an order short of striking off cannot deliver protection, because conditions on practice are only workable for someone actively working toward a return.
The determination does not record any patient being named as harmed by his screening performance, and no criminal proceeding appears in the published record. The panel’s decision was framed around risk and the absence of remediation rather than any act of dishonesty.
Current Status
Shanthiratne Semage was struck off the HCPC register on 22 November 2023, after a substantive finding of lack of competence and two reviews. His registration status can be checked on the official HCPC register. The published determination does not record any appeal against the striking-off order.
Impact on Their Career/Life
For a laboratory scientist, striking off closes registration-protected work in the UK NHS and private sectors, and a gap of more than five years out of practice combined with unresolved competence findings makes restoration a demanding path. The case illustrates how the HCPC’s review system resolves competence cases: a practitioner who neither returns to supervised practice nor maintains professional development moves from conditions toward erasure, not as punishment for a fresh act but because the panel concludes nothing short of removal addresses the risk.