Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes Dawn E Hicklin off
The physiotherapist supplied Botulinum Toxin outside NHS governance, kept inadequate records and acted dishonestly during an investigation.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 31 January 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 Dawn E Hicklin, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH50886).
Decision date: 31 January 2025 · Hearing started 22 January 2025 and ended 31 January 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel struck physiotherapist Dawn E Hicklin off after finding that she supplied Botulinum Toxin outside her trust's governance, allowed a colleague to administer it, kept inadequate records and acted dishonestly during an investigation. Although she admitted the allegations and had some insight, she did not demonstrate adequate remediation and later disengaged.
Charges
Ms Hicklin supplied Botulinum Toxin to a colleague outside her NHS trust's governance and knowingly allowed him to administer it; failed to follow trust procedures; maintained inadequate patient records; gave two untrue accounts during her employer's investigation; and did not report her dismissal to the HCPC.
Findings
The panel found the allegations proved, including dishonesty, and concluded that they amounted to serious misconduct and current impairment on personal and public grounds. Her insight remained underdeveloped and there was no adequate evidence of remediation. Her disengagement meant conditions or suspension would not be effective, so the panel ordered striking off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No previous adverse regulatory history; full admissions to the allegations then in existence on two occasions, although the later admissions accompanied a voluntary-removal request; acknowledgement that her conduct was wrong and some insight; no evidence that patients were harmed, although they faced significant risk; positive evidence about her clinical abilities and intentions; no repetition despite subsequent work for another trust.
Aggravating factors
On multiple occasions over a prolonged period she supplied Botulinum Toxin outside the trust's governance and exposed patients to risk; her record-keeping was inadequate over a long period despite her seniority and experience; she was dishonest on two occasions; she breached numerous professional standards over a significant period despite knowing what was required; her insight was underdeveloped and her initial efforts were not sustained; her eventual disengagement prevented her from explaining her motivation, while her repeated disregard of trust policies continued until discovery.
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.