Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS tribunal suspends GP Dr Magdalene Ekpiken for six months over clinical failings
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel has suspended GP Dr Magdalene Idu Ekpiken for six months after finding she failed to adequately assess two patients and keep accurate records for three others in 2024. Allegations of dishonesty concerning two further patients were found not proved.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 4 June 2026 · Updated 7 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 6 months
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Magdalene Idu Ekpiken, doctor (General Medical Council 6161395).
Decision date: 4 June 2026 · Hearing started 19 May 2026 and ended 4 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Magdalene Idu Ekpiken, a GP, failed to provide good clinical care to several patients in 2024, including not adequately assessing two patients and not keeping accurate records for three, one record stating she had carried out baby examinations she had not done. The tribunal decided this amounted to serious misconduct and that her fitness to practise was impaired, noting similar failings in 2018. It suspended her registration for six months. Allegations of dishonesty relating to two other patients were found not proved.
Charges
The GMC alleged that between January and May 2024 Dr Ekpiken, a salaried GP, failed to provide good clinical care and to make accurate records in relation to five patients. This included failing to adequately assess a patient during a telephone consultation and to record key features of her presentation; failing to examine a baby's heart, chest and eyes during a six-to-eight-week check while recording that she had; failing to take a history and examine another patient while recording that she had; and failing to record that she had carried out an intimate examination of a further patient with consent and the offer of a chaperone. Some of these matters were alleged to be dishonest. Dr Ekpiken admitted the matters relating to three patients but disputed those relating to two others, including the allegations of dishonesty.
Findings
The tribunal found the admitted matters proved: Dr Ekpiken had inadequately assessed Patient A and failed to record key features of her presentation, had not examined Patient D's heart, chest and eyes while recording that she had, and had failed to record consent and the offer of a chaperone for an intimate examination of Patient E. The disputed allegations relating to Patients B and C - including the allegations of dishonesty - were found not proved, the tribunal preferring Dr Ekpiken's account, which was consistent with her contemporaneous records. It concluded the proved failings in assessment and record-keeping amounted to serious misconduct that put patients at risk of harm, and that her fitness to practise was impaired, her insight and remediation being incomplete. Noting strikingly similar clinical failings for which she was suspended in 2018, the tribunal imposed a six-month suspension with an immediate order of suspension and directed a review.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The tribunal accepted that Dr Ekpiken had shown genuine remorse and made early admissions, had begun to develop insight and undertaken some targeted training, CPD and clinical shadowing, and had engaged fully with the regulator throughout. It found her misconduct was remediable and had not caused actual serious harm, though her insight and remediation remained incomplete.
Aggravating factors
The tribunal found that Dr Ekpiken's misconduct was repeated across three patients. At the sanction stage it also found that the clinical failings were strikingly similar to failures in patient assessment and record-keeping for which she had been suspended in 2018, and that this repetition of similar concerns increased the risk to public protection, placing the case at the top of the mid-range of seriousness.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service 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.