Mrs Wendi H Claydon
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
In that between 4 December 2020 and 22 January 2021:
1. You prescribed medication when the criteria for doing so were not met, namely:
a. On the occasions listed in Schedule A, you prescribed Nitrofurantoin when the inclusion criteria of the Patient Group Directions were not met and/or exclusion criteria were present and/or a Patient Specific Direction was not obtained;
b. On 8 January 2021, you prescribed Nitrofurantoin to Patient B without completing a physical examination as directed by the Patient Group Directions and/or obtaining a Patient Specific Direction from a permitted prescriber;
c. On 22 January 2021, you prescribed a 7-day course of Nitrofurantoin to Patient D when the Patient Group Directions stated the maximum allowance was a 3-day course;
d. On the occasions listed in Schedule B, you prescribed Trimethoprim when the inclusion criteria of the Patient Group Directions were not met and/or exclusion criteria were present and/or a Patient Specific Direction was not obtained;
e. On the occasions listed in Schedule C, you prescribed 1g of flucloxacillin when Patient Group Directions stated a maximum allowed dose of 500mg and/or a Patient Specific Direction was not obtained;
f. On 14 January 2021, you prescribed a 10-day course of Flucloxacillin to Patient T when the Patient Group Directions stated the maximum allowance was a 7-day course and/or a Patient Specific Direction was not obtained for this prescription.
2. On the occasions listed in Schedule D, you prescribed doxycycline where no Patient Group Directions were in place to allow you to do so and/or you did not obtain a Patient Specific Direction to allow you to do so.
3. On the occasions listed in Schedule E, you did not adequately record the medication prescribed.
4. The matters set out in particulars 1, 2 and 3 above constitute misconduct.
5. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired
Finding
No information currently available
Order
Preliminary Matters
Service and Proceeding in Absence
1. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle, which contained an email sent to the Registrant on 30 April 2025 notifying her of the date of this hearing.
2. In an email sent by the Hearings Officer on 27 August 2025, the Registrant was asked to confirm whether she would be attending the hearing. The Registrant responded the same day confirming she would not be attending. She said she had received the documents bundle and she did not intend to submit any further documents. She added that she understood that the HCPC needed to follow a process, but she did not feel it would be beneficial for her to take part.
3. Ms Bernard-Stevenson thus made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
4. The Panel took into account the submissions made by Ms Bernard-Stevenson, the papers provided, the response of the Registrant and the advice of the Legal Assessor, together with the Practice Note issued by the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (“HCPTS”). The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly notified of the date and remote venue of this hearing and had been provided with an opportunity to participate, had she wished to do so. In her response on 27 August 2025, the Registrant had made it clear she would not be attending and the Panel was satisfied that she had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and thereby waived her right to be present. She had not asked that the matter be adjourned and the Panel could see no advantage to either party in adjourning the matter. It was clearly in the public interest that this matter be dealt with expeditiously and it was also in the Registrant’s own interests that this matter be resolved. Accordingly, the Panel decided it was both appropriate and fair to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
Application for part of the hearing to take place in private
5. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made an application that part, or possibly all, of this hearing take place in private because there were matters pertaining to the private life of the Registrant, which ought to be dealt with in private in order to protect her privacy.
6. The Panel considered the application with care and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003. The Panel was aware that the default position is that hearings are conducted in public so that the public are aware of the functions being carried out by the Regulator. However, Rule 10 does also allow for the hearing or part of the hearing to be conducted in private, where necessary to protect the private life of a registrant.
7. The Panel agreed that it was appropriate for all matters relating to the Registrant’s health to be dealt with in private in order to protect her privacy. The rest of the hearing would be heard in public in the usual way.
Background
8. The Registrant is a Paramedic and was employed by DHU Healthcare as a Clinical Practitioner in the Oadby Urgent Care Centre, since April 2019.
9. On 25 January 2021, the Registrant’s Team Leader sent a request to the Locality Clinical Pharmacist and Prescribing and Medicines Safety Lead, to conduct a review of the Registrant’s Patient Group Direction (“PGD”) usage. The PGDs provide a strict legal framework that allows non-prescribers, such as the Registrant, to issue prescription medicines. Subsequently, concerns arose regarding the Registrant prescribing outside of the PGD framework.
10. On or around 1 March 2021, the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC.
11. The case was originally investigated by Kingsley Napley Solicitors and was thereafter outsourced to Blake Morgan Solicitors to continue the investigation.
12. The Registrant informed Blake Morgan on 4 August 2024 that she did not intend to return to her registered role in her current employment or any other employment and therefore considered that her registration was no longer required.
13. Thereafter, Blake Morgan queried the Registrant's retirement application with her employer. On 3 September 2024, the Registrant's line manager confirmed that she was retiring on 30 September 2024.
14. Accordingly, Blake Morgan provided a copy of the HCPTS Practice Note – Disposal of Cases by Consent to the Registrant. At this time, the Registrant was also informed that voluntary removal can only be considered where she admits both the substance of the allegations and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
15. On 16 October 2024, the HCPC received the Registrant’s completed Pro Forma in which she admitted the substance of the allegations and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. The Registrant confirmed she had read the relevant Practice Note, and that she wished to dispose of the case via a Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”).
16. The matter was referred to the Investigating Committee Panel (“ICP”) on 19 January 2022. The ICP determined there to be a case for the Registrant to answer and referred an allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee. That allegation was set out in the Notice of Allegation dated 10 March 2022, but was subsequently amended following a Preliminary Hearing on 17 October 2023. An amended Notice of Allegation was sent to the Registrant with the Allegation as detailed above.
17. The Registrant provided:
• A consensual disposal request pro forma dated 16 October 2024 in which she admitted the substance of the allegation. In this form the Registrant provided a clear indication that she does not intend to return to work.
• A VRA, signed by her on 2 May 2025.
18. The HCPC submitted that this matter was suitable for disposal by way of a VRA because:
• The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation. She has signed a consensual disposal request pro forma that sets out the allegation, which is capable of proof, and confirmed that she admits the substance of that allegation, that it amounts to misconduct, and that her fitness to practise is impaired as a result.
• Voluntary removal adequately protects the public. The Registrant would be removed from the HCPC Register and would not be entitled to practise as a Paramedic. Ms Claydon’s personal circumstances are such that there is no realistic prospect of her seeking to return to practise in the future. She has undertaken not to seek to return to the Register within a period of five years and should she attempt to do so at that point, she would have to demonstrate that she had fully remediated her current impairment.
• Voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest. The allegations concern clinical concerns dating back to January 2021 and whilst it is acknowledged that they are serious to the extent that they could pose a risk of harm if not remediated, it is considered that they are remediable. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Registrant’s conduct caused actual harm to patients. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the professions and promoting proper professional standards is best addressed by removing the Registrant from the Register at the earliest opportunity.
19. Accordingly, the HCPC invited the Panel to approve the VRA and give consent to the HCPC to withdraw the proceedings in accordance with the draft withdrawal notice.
Decision on the Voluntary Agreement
20. The Panel took into account the content of the bundle provided together with the skeleton argument prepared on behalf of the HCPC, the signed VRA and the submissions made by Ms Bernard-Stevenson. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and in particular that it should not agree to resolve a case in this way unless it is satisfied of two things: first, that the appropriate level of public protection is being secured and, secondly, that doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on consensual disposal.
21. The VRA is an agreement to the effect that the HCPC will not take any further action against the Registrant in relation to this matter on the understanding that she will remove herself from the Register, cease from practising as a Paramedic and not attempt to re-join the Register for a period of at least five years.
22. If the Registrant were to apply to come back on to the Register, her application would be treated in the same way as someone who had been struck off.
23. It is clear from the correspondence received that the Registrant is not currently practising as a Paramedic and does not intend to do so in the future. She has accepted the allegations and that consequently her fitness to practise is impaired.
24. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has been provided with detailed information about the consent process and the effect of voluntary removal from the Register, should the application be granted, and has signed the VRA in that knowledge.
25. The Panel was also satisfied that public protection would be ensured as the agreement is equivalent, in effect, to a Striking off Order. The Registrant would no longer be registered as a Paramedic and she has confirmed that she does not intend to practise as a Paramedic in the
future. Accordingly, the public would be adequately protected from any potential risk posed by the Registrant.
26. In addition, the Panel was satisfied that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would not be undermined by the granting of this VRA, since it reflects an acceptance by the Registrant of the matters alleged and that her fitness to practise is impaired. Furthermore, its imposition would be treated in the same way as if she had been removed from the Register following a substantive Final Hearing. The Panel did not consider, therefore, that this was a case that called for a public hearing. The matters concerned were now some four to five years old.
27. The Panel considered that, in all the circumstances, it was appropriate to dispose of this matter in accordance with the terms of the VRA. Disposal by consent on these terms is a suitable, pragmatic and expeditious way of dealing with this matter, whilst meeting the requirements of public protection and public interest.
28. Accordingly, the Panel gave consent to the HCPC to withdraw these proceedings and the Chair signed the Notice of Withdrawal.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mrs Wendi H Claydon
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/09/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Voluntary Removal Agreement | Voluntary Removal agreed |