Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS orders Emmanuel Pakha-Ephraim to be struck off over misconduct findings
The HCPTS panel found misconduct involving cell-product safety checks and dishonesty. It ordered striking off and interim suspension to cover the appeal process.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Emmanuel Pakha-Ephraim, biomedical scientist (Health and Care Professions Council BS076762).
Decision date: 17 September 2026 · Hearing started 8 September 2026 and ended 17 September 2026
In plain English
The HCPTS panel ordered biomedical scientist Emmanuel Pakha-Ephraim to be struck off after finding repeated safety-check failures and dishonesty towards supervisors. The findings concerned cell products and test results, with risks to patients. The panel found continuing impairment and no evidence of insight or remediation. It also imposed interim suspension to cover the appeal period or any appeal before the substantive order takes effect.
Charges
The allegations concerned failures in checking, documenting and reporting cell products and samples at NHS Blood and Transplant in 2023 and 2024, and dishonesty towards supervisors about altered paperwork and verification of manually entered results.
Findings
The panel proved the factual allegations and found misconduct and impairment on both the personal and public components. Some administrative errors were not misconduct individually but collectively formed a serious pattern. It found no insight or remediation and a real risk of repetition. It ordered striking off, with an interim suspension for up to 18 months to cover the appeal period or any appeal; that interim duration is not the substantive sanction.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
i. no demonstration of insight or remediation; ii. repeated dishonesty; iii. pattern of carelessness; iv. errors and dishonesty occurred after a disciplinary process, re-training and being signed off as competent for full duties; v. risk of harm to patients.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.