George A P Dunn

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to undertake a review of a substantive Conditions of Practice Order imposed in respect of the Registrant, Mr George Dunn. The review is being undertaken under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

Background

2. The Registrant is registered as a Chiropodist/Podiatrist. At the time of the matters relevant to the HCPC’s allegation he was employed as a Podiatrist by the Cheshire East NHS Trust (“the Trust”) and is still so employed.

3. On 28 June 2023, the HCPC received an anonymous referral concerning the Registrant. Included in that referral was the following:

“I regret to report that he (the Registrant) has inserted antibiotic beads into the feet of a number of patients at Waters Green surgery. This occurred around 2 weeks ago. The beads were only prescribed for 1 patient - and yet he used them for a further 2 others. They were therefore not prescribed for use on the other patients, and the batch had become contaminated by the 1st patient’s blood (it is only to be used for 1 patient)”

4. Enquiries undertaken by the HCPC with the Trust resulted in the it being disclosed that a patient safety incident report was concluded on 9 October 2023. This resulted in the creating and implementing of a Standard Operating Procedure for the use of the beads, so that the prescriber of the beads should be the person administering the beads or the administration is made under direct supervision.

5. The matter was investigated by the HCPC. The Registrant provided his written responses to the HCPC on 1 February 2024, and on 16 April 2024 the Registrant admitted the substance of the allegation and set out some contextual and mitigating factors.

6. On 7 June 2024 the HCPC’s solicitors raised the question of disposal of the case by way of a consent order for Conditions of Practice. The Registrant agreed with this course of action and provided a signed pro- forma dated 14 August 2024 which was received by the HCPC on 2 September 2024.

7. Within the pro-forma the Registrant admitted the substance of the allegation, that it amounts to misconduct and or a lack of competence and that his fitness to practise is impaired.

8. A hearing was held on 1 April 2025 for a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee to decide if the agreement between the parties that the allegation should be disposed of by the making of the Conditions of Practice Order agreed. At that hearing it was noted by the panel conducting the hearing that the Registrant has undertaken an Aseptic Non-Touch technique training course and was noted as a cascade trainer. He had fully engaged with the Trust investigation and with the HCPC process. He had remained working for the Trust. He had not been the subject of an interim order and there have been no further concerns or complaints.

9. The agreement that had been made between the parties for the Conditions of Practice Order to be made for a period of 6 months. However, Counsel for the Registrant requested that consideration should be given to shortening that period in view of the fact that the Registrant had for some time already been undertaking the steps that would be required of him by the conditions of practice. The Presenting Officer took instructions on the matter and stated that there would be no objection to a shorter period being ordered than the six months that had been agreed.

10. The panel considering the consent application ordered the agreed conditions of practice and directed that the length of the Order should be four months. The conditions imposed were as follows:

(1) You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor, who must be a registered health care professional and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within two weeks of the date of this Order.

(2) You must attend upon that supervisor ideally on a fortnightly basis or two supervisions within each monthly period and follow their advice and recommendations.

(3) You must inform the HCPC and your supervisor if you use or administer Stimulan Antibiotic Beads on patients during the period in which this order is in force and arrange for your supervisor to forward to the HCPC the outcome of supervision on this matter.

(4) You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the deficiencies in cross contamination and the use of sterile gloves.

(5) You must meet with your supervisor on a fortnightly basis or two times in each monthly period to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

(6) You must write a reflective piece to evidence what you have learnt and how you have applied the learning to your practice, and you must provide a copy of that reflective piece to your supervisor and the HCPC two weeks before the end of the term of this Order.

(7) You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

(8) Within two months of this Order, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

(9) You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you cease to be employed by your current employer.

(10) You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up any other or further professional work.

(11) You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

a. Any patient safety incident you are involved in Any investigation started against you.
b. Any disciplinary proceedings taken against you.

(12) You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work.
b. Any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application).
c. Any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application).
d. Any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training.

(13) You must allow the HCPC to share, as necessary, details about your performance, compliance with, and/or progress under these conditions with:

a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b. Any agency you are registered with or apply be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);
c. Any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);
d. Any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training.

11. The Order was imposed on 1 April 2025 and came into effect on 29 April 2025 to run for a period of four months. It is therefore due to expire on 29 August 2025.

12. In advance of the hearing the Panel was provided with a considerable amount of documentary evidence that had been provided by the Registrant. Some of that documentation related to the period before the Order was made on 1 April 2025, and some of it after that date. Some of it was documentation that was required by the Registrant to be provided by the terms of the conditions of practice. Included in the documentation provided to the Panel was the following:

• Records of supervision meetings held on 15 April 2025, 29 April 2025, 14 May 2025, 27 May 2025, 10 June 2025, 1 July 2025, 15 July 2025 and 22 July 2025.
• Personal Development Plan documents dated 29 April 2025.
• Appraisal and Personal Development Plan dated 6 May 2025.
• Record of Level 2 Infection Prevention and Control training undertaken on 20 June 2024.
• ANTT Competency Assessment Workbook.
• A CPD Certificate relating to a course on Aseptic Non Touch Technique undertaken on 26 & 27 February 2025.
• A three-page reflective piece written by the Registrant sent to the HCPC by his Solicitors on 17 July 2025.
• A character reference dated 27 July 2025 written by Professor AH, a Professor of Medicine at the University of Manchester.

Submissions to the Panel

13. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer provided the Panel with a brief explanation of the background of the incident that gave rise to the allegation, of how the matter came to be dealt with by consent and of the hearing held on 1 April 2025. She then made submissions to the Panel as to the approach they should adopt to making the decision on this review; the submissions she made accorded with that subsequently given to the Panel by the Legal Assessor as will be summarized below. The Presenting Officer stated that the HCPC accepted that the Registrant had complied with the conditions of practice imposed and that there had been no further fitness to practise concerns involving him. The HCPC did not make a positive submission that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired or that a further sanction should be imposed upon the expiry of the present Order, submitting that the HCPC’s stance was one of neutrality.

14. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Shah stated that it was not her intention to call the Registrant to give evidence, but that if the Panel had any questions, she and the Registrant would be content for them to be asked either of her or of the Registrant under affirmation. Ms Shah submitted that there had been full compliance with the conditions of practice; indeed, she submitted that the Registrant had complied not simply with the letter of the conditions, but with the spirit of them. He had accepted responsibility for his actions, reflected on his behaviour in a meaningful way and fully engaged in his work-place supervision and had progressed his Personal Development Plan. She submitted that all of the available documentation made it clear that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired. Accordingly, she submitted that the present Order should be allowed to lapse upon its expiry.

15. The Panel indicated to Ms Shah that it did have questions it wished to ask the Registrant. The questions related to his understanding and reflections on the appropriateness of administering to a patient, prescription only medication prescribed for another patient, something that the admitted allegation involved. The Registrant answered the Panel’s questions under affirmation. He explained to the Panel his understanding of the reasons why it was not appropriate to administer prescription only medication prescribed for one patient to another patient, and the measures that are taken in ordinary circumstances to ensure that does not happen. He also described the frenetic circumstances in the multi-disciplinary clinic on 15 June 2023 when the misconduct occurred.

Decision

16. The Panel accepted the advice it received and followed the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”. What a panel undertaking a review of a substantive sanction order is required to do can be summarised as follows:

• The reviewing panel is obliged to accept as settled the finding of facts made by the final hearing panel and also the decision of that panel in relation to the statutory ground(s) made out.

• The task of the reviewing panel is to decide whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and, if it is, whether the existing order or some other order needs to be in place upon the expiry of the existing order.

• Included in the issues to be considered are those listed in paragraph 12 of the Practice Note. The reviewing panel is required to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment have been sufficiently addressed. In reaching its decision, it is appropriate for the reviewing panel to take the view that the registrant carries the persuasive burden of demonstrating that matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

• If the reviewing panel is of the view that a registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that a further order is required upon the expiry of the exiting order, then ordinary sanction principles apply. The decision should be made by following the guidance contained in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. It is necessary that any further order decided upon should satisfy the requirement that it represents a proportionate response.

The Panel confirms that in reaching its decision it has applied these principles.

17. In reaching its decisions, the Panel carefully reviewed both the documentary evidence with which it had been provided and considered the oral evidence given to it by the Registrant. Having done so, the conclusions of the Panel were:

• The Registrant has fully complied with the conditions of practise imposed on 1 April 2025.

• From the outset, the Registrant demonstrated insight into his actions on 15 June 2023; he acknowledged what he had done and he discharged his duty of candour.

• He has fully engaged with both the Trust and the HCPC, and made full admissions of wrongdoing to both.

• He has successfully completed relevant CPD that comprehensively addressed the concerns in relation to infection control and the risk of cross contamination.

• There have been no further concerns raised about Mr Dunn’s practice. The Panel considered that the facts found proved related to the single incident of misconduct and have not been repeated.

• He has a clear understanding not only that he made a bad decision on 15 June 2023, but why it was a bad decision. He has also taken steps to ensure that it will not be repeated.

• For these reasons, the Panel has concluded that there is no appreciable risk that the Registrant will repeat behaviour of the type that resulted in the admitted allegation.

18. On the basis of the Panel’s conclusions just described, the Panel was satisfied that, upon consideration of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

19. The Panel accepted that there are cases when it would be appropriate to reach a finding of impairment of fitness to practise to satisfy the public component even when the relevant issue has been addressed and there is no appreciable risk of repetition. However, in the context of the present case, the Panel has concluded that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise is not required on that ground; fair-minded members of the public, recognising the Registrant’s remediation of his shortcomings of two years ago, and accepting all of the factors that have led to him achieving that remediation, would not require the finding to maintain their confidence in him, his profession or the regulation of it.

20. The consequence of all these findings is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired. Accordingly, no further sanction is required when the present Order expires.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to allow the current Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of George A P Dunn to lapse upon its expiry, namely 29 August 2025.

No notes available

History of Hearings for George A P Dunn