A dietitian has been removed from the UK’s professional register following an incident where she utilized ChatGPT to deliver “textbook” responses during a virtual NHS job interview from Nigeria.

Aiwanehi Aigbokhaevbo was discovered employing AI tools to generate immediate responses intended to impress the interviewers during a video call for a position at an NHS hospital.

The registered dietitian frequently requested the interview panel to repeat their questions. She then echoed the questions slowly and deliberately, seemingly to buy time while waiting for “ideal” answers to be generated, as a tribunal revealed.

Based in Nigeria, Miss Aigbokhaevbo aroused suspicion when she was observed reading from a screen, and despite initial hesitations, managed to deliver her answers with exceptional eloquence.

One panel member later entered the interview questions into ChatGPT and noticed a striking resemblance to the responses she had given.

The tribunal noted that the misuse of AI tools has been a recurring issue among candidates from Nigeria seeking employment.

Three different members of the panel suggested she was cheating both while answering questions in the interview and while completing a subsequent case study question.  

Miss Aigbokhaevbo has now been struck off following a hearing at the Heath and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS).

The tribunal heard that she undertook the job interview for an oncology dietician role at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in March 2024.

The interview took place over Microsoft Teams because she was in Nigeria at the time.   

During the interview she was asked personal questions, which the panel said she answered with ‘great enthusiasm and spontaneity’.

But when she was asked clinical questions, she often hesitated and asked for the question to be repeated.

Aiwanehi Aigbokhaevbo was caught using AI to provide real-time answers to impress interviewers during a video call for a job at an NHS hospital (stock image of dietician)

The tribunal panel said: ‘When asked questions of a clinical nature, Miss Aigbokhaevbo’s response altered noticeably: she became very hesitant, she asked the panel to repeat the questions a number of times and she herself then repeated the questions back very slowly and deliberately.

‘After much hesitation and repetition of the questions, she would then articulate with great fluency a model answer, rather than answering from her own knowledge and experience.

‘The answers she provided were as if from a textbook, indicating specialist knowledge and experience of an advanced level, referring to medical terminology which were beyond the expectations of the job role.’

The panel noted during the interview that her eyes were moving ‘from side to side’, as if she was reading from the screen.

They found that she was repeating the questions being put to her, so that she could input them into an AI and then read them out.

After the interview, Miss Aigbokhaevbo was asked to write a case study in 45 minutes.

The panel said this was also completed by her using AI because the answers were ‘too detailed and perfect’ to be her own work.

The interview panel concluded that she had used AI during the interview.

At the tribunal hearing, Miss Aigbokhaevbo denied using AI during the interview and said that if she had, it would have been a ‘great offence’.

She said that this was her 17th job interview and she had previously applied for around 200 jobs.

Her insistence on repeating the questions back, she said, was a ‘reflex’ to ensure that she had understood the question correctly.

She denied showing any hesitancy in answering questions but said that she needed to digest the question before answering.

Miss Aigbokhaevbo also suggested there were some connectivity issues during the interview and her glances away were to check her wi-fi router next to her laptop. 

The hearing concluded that her responses were inconsistent and that she had used AI during the interview.

The panel said: ‘With regard to the personal component, (she) denied the allegation and has expressed no remorse or apology.

‘Her dishonest use of AI was compounded by her subsequent lies and by seeking to cast doubt on the professional integrity and veracity of the HCPC witnesses.

‘Whilst she acknowledged in her evidence that using AI to assist her in her job interview would be cheating and “a great offence”, she has shown no insight as how cheating in a job interview would undermine the integrity of the recruitment process; have a potentially negative impact on the Trust in having to address deficits in the knowledge and expertise of the person recruited; potentially jeopardise patient care in being treated by a Dietitian who didn’t have the knowledge and skills she claimed to have.

‘Given the attitudinal nature of (her) misconduct, and the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight, or remediation, the Panel considered that there was a significant risk of repetition.

‘The Panel found (her) to be untrustworthy in her willingness to tell lies in the course of her evidence and impugn the professional integrity of the HCPC’s witnesses.

‘The Panel therefore concluded that (her) fitness to practise is impaired at a personal level.’

The panel concluded that she would be struck from the register and that an interim suspension order of 18 months would be imposed to cover the period in which she can still appeal.