Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS suspends Jenny Rudston for 12 months over competence failures
A physiotherapist was suspended after an HCPTS panel found repeated shortcomings in time management, clinical reasoning and risk assessment.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 3 July 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.
Concerning Jenny Rudston, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH78103).
Decision date: 3 July 2025 · Hearing started 2 July 2025 and ended 3 July 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that Jenny Rudston lacked competence in core areas including time management, clinical reasoning and patient risk assessment. It found limited insight, no meaningful remediation and a significant risk of repetition, and suspended her registration for 12 months.
Charges
The allegation concerned Jenny Rudston's work as a Band 5 physiotherapist between October 2018 and March 2020, including ineffective time management, poor clinical reasoning, inadequate risk assessments and failing to use an emergency bell for an unresponsive patient.
Findings
The panel found a fair sample of repeated competence failures in time management, clinical reasoning and risk assessment, with significant potential risk to patients. It found current impairment on personal and public grounds because remediation and insight were inadequate and the risk of repetition was significant. It imposed the maximum 12-month suspension available before review.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Registrant has expressed remorse and has apologised; She had made some admissions in relation to the allegation against her; No actual harm was caused to any patient – however, the Panel considered that there was still a significant risk of harm.
Aggravating factors
The lack of any significant insight; the lack of any meaningful remediation, which in turn leads to an increased risk of repetition; The potential for harm to patients due to the Registrant’s lack of competence; The Registrant’s regulatory history.
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.