Edward W Freeth

Preliminary Matters
Service of Notice

1. The Notice of Hearing (‘NOH’) was sent to the Registrant at the postal address held by the HCPC, on 10 December 2025. The NOH contained the date and time of today’s hearing and informed the Registrant of the HCPC’s intention to hold the hearing virtually, by video conference.

2. A proof of service document was produced by the HCPC confirming that the Notice of Hearing was posted by “Admin Team” to their registered address by first class post on Wednesday, 10 December 2025. This was also supported by a certificate of Registration confirming the Registrant’s address on the HCPC register.

3. The Panel also had sight of a file note produced by Blake Morgan Solicitors dated 20 January 2026, which recorded a conversation with the Registrant as follows;
“Call with Edward Freeth
It was explained to Mr Freeth that we had safely received the VRA he had signed and sent across to us. I then explained that in preparation for the final hearing next week, I required confirmation that he was …. Mr Freeth confirmed … his non-attendance at the hearing next week. When asked whether he could confirm … in a text message, he became frustrated and wished for us to rely on his oral confirmation during the call.”

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, and it also had regard to the aforementioned correspondence from the Registrant, which confirmed that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that the NOH had been properly served on the Registrant and that the notice period was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the Health Professions Order 2001 and the HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

Proceeding in the Registrant’s Absence

5. Mr Maughan, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Mr Maughan submitted that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s future attendance.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had drawn the Panel’s attention, amongst other things, to the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Proceeding in Absence of the Registrant’; Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162; and R v Hayward & Ors [2001] 3 WLR 125.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the NOH was sent to the Registrant’s registered postal address on 10 December 2025. The Panel considered that the HCPC had made all reasonable efforts to serve the NOH on the Registrant and that the Registrant had been informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

8. The Panel was also satisfied, further to the Registrant’s telephone correspondence with Blake Morgan Solicitors, that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing.

9. Having satisfied itself that the Registrant had been properly notified of the hearing, the Panel formed the view that the Registrant’s non-attendance was voluntary and should be considered as a waiver of his right to participate in person. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel considered the contents of the telephone attendance note. Having regard to this, the Panel considered that adjourning today’s hearing to an alternative date would be highly unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing.

10. Further, the Panel also considered whether the Registrant would be caused any disadvantage should it determine to proceed in his absence. The Panel noted that it was the Registrant’s application for voluntary removal from the HCPC Register that the Panel was being asked to consider, and that was supported by the Registrant. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant would not be unduly disadvantaged or prejudiced, or see himself to be so, should it determine to proceed in his absence.

11. Additionally, the Panel considered that it was in both parties’ interests, and in line with its overarching objective of considering matters before it expeditiously, that the hearing should proceed today. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel considered that it was both fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Privacy

12. Mr Maughan applied to conduct parts of the hearing in private. He noted that the case relates to the Registrant’s health and as health is legitimately considered part of the Registrant’s private life, parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s health ought to be dealt with in private. Mr Maughan reassured the panel that only parts of the hearing were required to be held in private, as he was able to separate submissions in respect of health from the application itself.

13. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to the HCPTS Practice Note 'Conducting Hearings in Private'.

14. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, the Panel agreed that the hearing ought to be dealt with partly in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life in respect of matters relating to his health. The Panel considered that going in and out of private session could be managed appropriately. For those reasons, the Panel considered that parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s health ought to be held in private.

Background

15. On 14 February 2017, the Registrant was working a shift as a member of agency staff in the role of recovery practitioner at Stoke Hospital. Having taken charge of an elderly post-operative patient and having noticed a drop in blood pressure, the Registrant did not notify staff and instead administered IV Volpex without first obtaining a prescription from a member of medical staff. The IV was discontinued after 30 minutes.

16. After becoming aware of the incident, the nursing staff discussed the incident with the Registrant, who recognised the seriousness of the actions. The staff noted that no Volpex had been prescribed for the patient on the infusion prescription chart. The Registrant was prevented from continuing his shift. The Datix form states that no harm was caused to the patient as a result of the Registrant’s actions.

17. The Registrant provided a reflective piece following the incident to reduce the risk of a repeat, including reading around the subject, reviewing the code of conduct and working within the limits of his role.

18. During the HCPC investigation, it came to light that the Registrant was struggling with his health.

19. On 14 February 2020, an Investigating Committee Panel (ICP) considered the above incident and wider health matters and found there to be a case to answer in respect of the following allegation and sent the case to the Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC).
As a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP13232), your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or a health condition, in that on 14 February 2017, you:

1. Did not accurately measure Patient A’s blood pressure in that you utilised an oversized cuff to measure Patient A’s blood pressure
2. Did not raise concerns about Patient A’s blood pressure with any other member of clinical staff.
3. Inappropriately administered Volplex to Patient A:
a. without having the treatment prescribed and/or checked by a member of staff qualified to prescribe and/or
b. without checking the appropriateness of such treatment either prior to or after administering the Volplex.
4. Did not adequately document in Patient A’s medical records that you had administered Volplex to Patient A.
5. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.
6. The matters described at 1 – 4 above constitute misconduct.
7. By reason of your misconduct and/or a health condition, your fitness to practise is impaired.
SCHEDULE A
1. Redacted
2. Redacted
3. Redacted

20. On 12 April 2021, the Conduct and Competence Committee presided over a voluntary removal application, having received a request from the Registrant for removal from the register in August 2017.

21. On the day of the hearing, the HCPC requested an adjournment on the basis that the Registrant had not provided a signed voluntary removal agreement, and so the matter could not proceed without his express consent within the signed document.

22. On 8 April 2022, the matter was returned to the CCC however in light of failed attempts to obtain a signed agreement from the Registrant, the HCPC invited the panel to preside over the Registrant’s application for voluntary removal but not agree to the application and instead either adjourn the hearing to give the Registrant a further opportunity to provide a signed agreement or refer the matter to the Health Committee (HC) for a hearing.

23. In the absence of a signed VRA form, the Panel decided to reject the voluntary agreement application and instead refer the allegation to be heard by a panel of the Health Committee.

24. On 8 January 2026, a signed VRA dated 19 December 2025 was received by Blake Morgan within which the Registrant admitted the substance of the allegation made out against him in the notice of allegation and that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of health and misconduct. The Registrant confirmed that they want to dispose of the case via a VRA. This VRA is also consistent with the consensual disposal request pro forma signed by the Registrant dated 7 September 2024.

Submissions
HCPC

25. Mr Maughan drew the Panel’s attention to the background of the case and the HCPC’s skeleton argument and, in summary, submitted the following:

i) No harm was caused to the patient as a result of the Registrant’s actions on 14 February 2017. The Registrant provided a reflective piece following this incident with a patient, acknowledging fault and outlining the steps taken to reduce the risk of repetition, which included reading around the code of conduct and requirements to work within the limits of his role. The Registrant outlined actions to be taken to ensure that the incident was not repeated.
ii) It came to light that the Registrant was struggling with his health.
iii) Redacted
iv) The Panel were informed of the procedural history of the case and informed that the voluntary removal agreement dated 19 December 2025 was received by the case manager at Blake Morgan, which led to today’s application.
v) It was submitted that the Registrant admits the substance of the allegation made out against him in the notice of the allegation and accepts that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of health and misconduct. The Registrant has also confirmed that they wish this case to be disposed of by way of a voluntary removal agreement. It was noted that the voluntary removal agreement is consistent with the consensual disposal requests pro forma signed by the Registrant on 7 September 2024.
vi) The Panel were reminded that the Registrant understands that he will remove himself from the register and will cease practising as an ODP. It was noted that if the Registrant applied to come back to the profession, any application to do so would be treated in the same way as someone who had been struck off.
vii) In respect of the public protection and the public interest, it was submitted that the patient did not come to any harm during the incident in 2017. Furthermore, the risk of any ongoing harm to patients or indeed the public was minimal. It was noted that the misconduct was isolated and occurred over 9 years ago. Further, the Registrant had reflected on his conduct and taken actions to remediate.
viii) It was noted that the Registrant acknowledged that he was not well at the time of the incident. It was submitted that there have been no adverse fitness to practise matters recorded against the Registrant previously. The Registrant sought a voluntary removal as far back as August 2017, indicating a desire to be removed from the register, which demonstrates a longstanding intention to refrain from registered practise.
ix) Redacted
x) It was submitted that, given the Registrant’s personal circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of him seeking to return to practise in the future. It was submitted that the public was adequately protected, and public interest in drawing this matter to a close was also served.

26. Mr Maughan further submitted that the VRA was an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with this matter, and the HCPC invited the Panel to approve the proposed agreement.

The Registrant

27. The Registrant did not provide any detailed submissions for the Panel’s consideration. However, the Panel had regard to the contents of a letter dated 31 August 2017 and the telephone attendance note of 20 January 2026.

Decision on Application

28. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, which included, but was not limited to:
i) reminding the Panel that the process of disposing of a case by way of consent is an extra-statutory means of concluding a matter and before agreeing to such a course the Panel has to be certain that by adopting this process there is the appropriate level of public protection and that there is no overriding public interest in this matter proceeding to a further substantive order review hearing;
ii) Article 11(3) of the 2001 Order and Rule 12(3) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Registration and Fees) Rules 2003 prevent a Registrant from seeking to resign from the Register whilst the Registrant is the subject of an Allegation. This being the case, the Panel would, if agreeing to this matter being dealt with in this way, be required to agree to a discontinuance of proceedings.
iii) the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Disposal of cases by consent’ (March 2018) states:
“In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to resign from the Register it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the Registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the Registrant had been struck off.”
If the Panel is not satisfied that the above criteria have been met, it appreciates that it has the ability to reject the application and allow the matter to proceed to a Substantive Hearing.

29. The Panel had sight of the following documentation:
i) HCPC skeleton argument (7 pages);
ii) the HCPC Voluntary Removal bundle (82 pages);

30. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the HCPC’s submissions and the correspondence between the parties regarding the VRA.

31. Having carefully considered the material presented to it, the Panel noted that the Registrant had admitted the Allegation in full, he had requested to be removed from the HCPC register and had stated that he has no intention of returning to any form of ODP work. The Panel also noted that a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a ‘case to answer’.

32. Based on the documentary evidence, the medical evidence and the full admissions made by the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that the particulars of the Allegation were capable of being found proved on the balance of probabilities.

33. The Panel considered the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conduct and the material before it, and it was satisfied that these factors would also have supported a finding of current impairment, in respect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise. Although the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct may not have resulted in a Striking Off Order (given the ground of health contained within the Allegation), the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s circumstances met the underlying purpose of removal by consent, which is to avoid unnecessary Substantive Hearings.

34. The Panel also noted that as the VRA mirrors the terms of a Striking Off Order, in that it would prevent the Registrant from practising as an ODP, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent him from making an application to be re-admitted to the Register within 5 years.

35. It was also clear to the Panel that the Registrant is no longer fit to work as an ODP and wishes to bring matters to a conclusion by removing himself from the HCPC register. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the consequences of voluntary removal and has willingly entered into such an agreement with the HCPC. The Panel therefore concluded that it does not consider that the matters raised in this case are such that a Substantive Hearing is warranted.

36. Having regard to the nature and circumstances in this case, the Panel was also satisfied that the VRA would offer service user protection, in that the Registrant will not be able to practise as an ODP as the effect of the VRA is that the Registrant will be removed from the HCPC Register and he would be unable to reapply to be admitted to the HCPC Register for a period of five years.

37. The Panel also considered that the wider public interest would be appropriately dealt with and would not be affected by this matter not being publicly scrutinised at a Substantive Hearing. The Panel was of the view that the acceptance of a measure equivalent to Strike-Off would not be seen by the public as the Registrant being afforded an ‘easy way’ to leave past events behind him. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the proceedings had been ongoing for a number of years (with the particulars of the Allegation dating back to 2017) and the Registrant fully accepts the Allegation. The Panel considered that there was no patient harm as a result of the incident, however, the Panel acknowledged that there was a potential for such harm. It noted that the Registrant has significant health concerns and is unlikely to be fit to return to practice. The Panel also noted that should the Registrant wish to return to the HCPC Register, then he will also have several requirements to fulfil before being able to regain registration.

38. The Panel therefore determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a Substantive Hearing where full admissions have been made and where the Registrant has expressed a clear desire to be removed from the Register. Furthermore, the Panel noted that prolonging the hearing process had the potential to damage the reputation of the ODP profession and was likely to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession, given the length of time since this incident took place.

39. Consequently, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel concluded that in all the circumstances of this case, the approval of the proposed VRA is the proportionate and appropriate course of action in this case.

40. The Panel noted that the VRA presented to it documented that the terms of the VRA had been signed by the HCPC and the Registrant and his witness in all appropriate sections.

The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Edward W Freeth from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Edward W Freeth