Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS strikes off Nadine Field over alcohol, discrimination and boundary findings

The HCPTS panel ordered Nadine Field's striking off after findings involving patient records, alcohol at work, discriminatory comments and professional boundaries. A separate allegation about treating patients while signed off work was not proved.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 8 July 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 Nadine Field, practitioner psychologist (Health and Care Professions Council PYL30426).

Decision date: 8 July 2026 · Hearing started 19 June 2026 and ended 8 July 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel found that Nadine Field committed misconduct involving patient records, alcohol at work, discriminatory comments and asking a patient to buy alcohol. It ordered striking off, with a separate interim suspension during the appeal period. The panel found emotional harm to the patient and insufficient insight and remediation overall. A separate allegation of treating patients while signed off work was not proved.

Charges

The joined allegations concerned deficient patient records, attending work and a patient appointment under the influence of alcohol, discriminatory language towards a colleague, and asking a patient to buy alcohol. A separate allegation concerned treating private and NHS patients while signed off work.

Findings

The panel found misconduct in deficient record keeping, attending work and a patient appointment under the influence of alcohol, discriminatory comments towards a colleague, and repeated requests for a patient to purchase alcohol. The allegation of sessions with two private patients and contact with an NHS patient while signed off work was not proved. The panel found actual emotional harm to the patient in the boundary-related case, risk of harm to other patients and current impairment on personal and public grounds. It recognised some insight and apologies regarding records and the earlier alcohol incident but found insufficient insight overall, no demonstrated remediation and a real risk of repetition. It ordered striking off and a separate interim suspension for up to 18 months pending appeal.

Mitigating factors

i. demonstration of a level of insight into the misconduct found in Particulars 1 and 2 (FTP83289 and FTP84263); ii. apology given by the Registrant in respect of the misconduct in Particular 1 and 2 (FTP83289 and FTP84263); iii. some evidence of health concerns at the time in question

Aggravating factors

i. No demonstration of insight into the misconduct in Particular 4a and b, Particulars 1 and 2a and 2 b (FTP 92389); ii. No remediation demonstrated; iii. repeated pattern of behaviour in attending for work under the influence of alcohol, and breaching professional boundaries with SUA; iv. actions motivated by self-interest in respect of SUA v. harm to SUA, and risk of harm to other service users; vi. upset caused to SC in front of other colleagues; vii. abuse of professional position and 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.