Laila Ruskar Ahmed, registration number W/5068548, has been the subject of a hearing about her fitness to practice as she had to face charges that allegedly on more than one occasion she used or attempted to use a colleague’s bank card without permission.
The panel, chaired by Urtha Felda, had to consider the evidence provided to them by three witnesses, all of whom had been under the employ of Linc Cymru at Capel Tree Nursing Home in Newport at the time of the alleged incident in June 2023.
Ahmed was facing two separate charges at the hearing, the first being that she had allegedly used a colleague’s card without permission, and the second that she had conducted herself in a matter that was dishonest and lacked integrity.
After considering all the evidence available, the fitness to practice panel concluded that the facts on all charges had been proven.
The panel found that all three witnesses who gave evidence were “credible” and did so in a “clear straightforward way”, and the panel deemed the facts of the case to amount to “serious allegations”.
The panel were satisfied that due to Ahmed’s contradicting stories and lack of engagement that it was “far more likely” the facts were true.
The panel found that Ahmed’s conduct was dishonest and lacked integrity as there was no “genuine or honestly held belief” that she had permission to use the card, and her actions were a “significant departure” from the ethical and professional standards expected in her profession.
The panel said the consequences must “adequately reflect the seriousness of the matters proved” and said there were no mitigating factors present, highlighting that Ahmed had only been registered with Social Care Wales for 11 months.
It was decided that Ahmed’s fitness to practice was impaired by “reason of serious misconduct” due to the breach of professional and public trust, as well as a risk of repetition.
Ahmed was judged to have displayed a “pattern of improper practice” due to the number of attempted transactions and her seeming lack of acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
It was decided that Ahmed had undermined public confidence in the profession and she could not be relied upon within this environment where she could come into contact with vulnerable individuals.
A removal order was made as the panel said the dishonesty showed she is “fundamentally incompatible with the profession” and this choice was taken in relation to the “safety of the public”.
An immediate suspension order has been put in place from the date Ahmed is notified of the decision until the removal order becomes effective within 28 days, or until any appeal against the decision is upheld, due to the “seriousness of the proven matters” and “risk to the public”.
