Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
Radiographer given 18 months of conditions to support safe return to practice
The panel found continuing impairment from lack of competence, but none from an isolated dishonesty incident. Conditions require indirect supervision, a development plan and restricted employment.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 9 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Conditions on practice (practising with restrictions) — 18 months
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Fiona Sharples, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA084626).
Decision date: 9 July 2026 · Hearing started 8 July 2026 and ended 9 July 2026
In plain English
The panel imposed 18 months' conditions on radiographer Fiona Sharples because repeated imaging and checking failures remained insufficiently remedied. It found no current impairment from one admitted, short-lived dishonesty incident, recognising her apology and insight, and rejected the other dishonesty allegation. Conditions require supervised practice with one non-agency employer, further development and no training or mentoring of others. The panel credited recent training and considered suspension disproportionate. Separate interim conditions cover the appeal period.
Charges
Allegations concerned repeated errors in patient identification, imaging, annotations, safety checks and supervision during 2023, and two alleged attempts to conceal errors dishonestly.
Findings
The panel found lack of competence in repeated patient-identification, imaging, annotation and checking failures, with current impairment on public protection and public interest grounds. Particulars 6, 7, 9b, 12, 20, 23 and 30 were not proved; several other proved errors did not establish lack of competence. One short-lived instance of dishonestly blaming a colleague amounted to misconduct, but the panel found no current impairment from that misconduct on either ground, accepting genuine insight, apology and remediation. The other dishonesty allegation was rejected. At sanction it credited 11 completed training courses and willingness to improve. It imposed 18 months' conditions requiring one substantive non-agency employer, indirect supervision by a Band 6 or equivalent HCPC radiographer, a development plan and reporting, and no training or mentoring of students or colleagues. A separate interim conditions order in the same terms covers the appeal period. Suspension was considered disproportionate.
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.