Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Parul Shah over serious dietetic failings
The panel found repeated assessment errors, risks to vulnerable service users, no meaningful insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 12 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 Parul Shah, dietitian (Health and Care Professions Council DT03083).
Decision date: 12 September 2025 · Hearing started 8 September 2025 and ended 12 September 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that dietitian Parul Shah repeatedly made serious assessment and record-keeping errors involving vulnerable service users and mishandled a hoist incident. It found no meaningful insight or remediation, a high risk of repetition and continuing impairment. Because she had not improved during a capability process or shown any intention to address the failings, the panel struck her off.
Charges
Ms Shah was alleged to have inadequately conducted or recorded dietetic assessments for ten patients, including incorrect calculations, incomplete information, inappropriate advice and inadequate follow-up. She was also alleged to have put a service user at risk during use of a hoist, failed to seek trained help or consider an alternative, and delayed reporting the incident.
Findings
The panel proved the allegations and found serious misconduct rather than lack of competence. It found repeated unacceptable practice involving vulnerable service users, a real risk of harm, no meaningful insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition. It found impairment on personal and public grounds and concluded that no sanction short of striking off would adequately protect the public.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The failings were serious and exposed particularly vulnerable service users to a real risk of harm; they continued and were repeated over time, including during the Trust's capability process; there was a very significant risk of repetition and future harm; there was no significant improvement despite the capability process; more than four years had passed since resignation with no intention shown to address the shortcomings; and there was a lack of apology.
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.