Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Ruth Gathungu over competence and dishonesty findings
The panel found wide-ranging competence failings, three instances of dishonesty, limited insight and a high risk of repetition.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 29 September 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Ruth Wangithi Gathungu, operating department practitioner (Health and Care Professions Council ODP041467).
Decision date: 29 September 2025 · Hearing started 1 September 2025 and ended 29 September 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that operating department practitioner Ruth Gathungu showed wide-ranging competence failings during probation and acted dishonestly about her education, a reference and advice concerning disclosure of an HCPC investigation. It found limited insight, little remediation and a high risk of repetition. Concluding that the repeated dishonesty was incompatible with registration, it struck her off.
Charges
Ms Gathungu faced numerous competence allegations about emergency drugs, scrubbing, aseptic technique, instruments, theatre setup, equipment checks and patient preparation during her probationary employment. She was also alleged to have acted dishonestly about the length of her university course, an employment referee and advice to disclose an HCPC investigation.
Findings
The panel found a wide pattern of competence failings across a fair sample of work and proved three instances of dishonesty, amounting to lack of competence and misconduct. It found limited insight and remediation, a high risk of repetition and impairment on personal and public grounds. It concluded that the repeated dishonesty was fundamentally incompatible with registration and struck her off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Registrant was newly qualified at the time of the competency concerns; there are positive testimonials provided in respect of the Registrant; since the incident no further concerns have been raised; the Registrant made admissions in respect of two of the allegations.
Aggravating factors
Potential harm to service users; the Registrant has very limited insight as described in the Panel's decision on impairment; the Registrant has provided limited evidence of remediation; there have been multiple allegations of dishonesty found proved suggesting a repetition of dishonest conduct; the dishonesty was committed to enable the Registrant to derive a personal benefit; the Registrant failed to fully engage with support provided by the Trust.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.