Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Paramedic ordered struck off over discriminatory patient treatment

Rachel Claire Lemonofides' panel found racial motivation, clinical failings and continuing impairment, with no demonstrated remediation.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 14 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 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 Rachel Claire Lemonofides, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA18459).

Decision date: 14 August 2026 · Hearing started 10 August 2026 and ended 14 August 2026

In plain English

Paramedic Rachel Claire Lemonofides was ordered struck off after the panel found discriminatory and racially motivated treatment of a patient, clinical failings and failures to notify the HCPC of employment action. It found she had not recognised signs requiring urgent hospital care. With minimal insight and no demonstrated remediation, the panel found continuing impairment and a high risk of repetition.

Charges

Discriminatory, racially motivated and unprofessional comments and conduct towards a patient, failure to recognise the seriousness of her condition, a dismissive comment afterwards, and failure to promptly report employer restrictions and dismissal to the HCPC.

Findings

The panel found all particulars proved and to amount to serious misconduct. It found discrimination based on ethnicity, racial motivation and clinical failures delaying conveyance to hospital. It expressly said the eventual unusual diagnosis need not have been identified, but the signs of serious illness required urgent care. It found impairment on both personal and public components, minimal insight, no demonstrated remediation and a high risk of repetition. It ordered striking off, with a separate interim suspension for the appeal period subject to a maximum of 18 months.

Mitigating factors

• The Registrant’s reflective piece provided demonstrated a degree of remorse and regret, acknowledged that her behaviour had affected more than one person and included an unreserved apology. However, the Panel considered that this document was over a year old and the Registrant had suggested she was not entirely responsible for the incident and appeared to blame Colleague A in relation to certain aspects. The Panel therefore agreed that they could attach limited weight to this document as a mitigating factor. • [Redacted]

Aggravating factors

• Range of unacceptable conduct, language and aggressive tone used; • Conduct and comments repeated over nearly two hours; • Racially motivated comments and behaviour; • Discriminatory behaviour towards Patient A based on her ethnicity; • Aggressive, degrading and demeaning demeanour; • Threats to Patient A to tell her employer, which would have been a breach of patient confidentiality; • Conduct directed at vulnerable service user; • Failure to treat Patient A with dignity and respect; • Failure to communicate effectively with Colleague A; • Failure to set professional standards in front of junior colleague; • Failure to act with integrity; • Breach of professional conduct, boundaries and professional position; • Clinical failing to pick up and/or ignoring red flags; • Repeatedly ignoring Patient A’s symptoms and belittling her pain; • Ignoring the results of clinical tests undertaken by Colleague A; • Actual physical and psychological harm caused to Patient A; • Registrant’s culpability for that harm; • Risk of future harm to service users who may be reluctant to contact the emergency services; • Potential impact on public confidence in the paramedic profession; • Failed to engage with fitness to practise hearing; • Lack of insight or remediation shown by the Registrant; • Failed to consider how the incident affected Patient A in the reflective piece provided, instead simply considering how the incident affected herself. • No evidence to support the explanation suggested during the Trust investigation of being exposed to “black magic” during other calls attended as a paramedic; • No evidence of any CPD, training or meaningful understanding of why she treated Patient A as she did; • No evidence of any action taken to address the concerns raised; and • High risk of repetition in light of the aggravating factors, in particular the serious attitudinal concerns.

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.