Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — warning
Formally warned
The regulator’s term: warning
What does “formally warned” mean?
A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.
Concerning David Trennery, doctor (General Medical Council 7554447).
Decision date: 18 February 2026 · Hearing started 20 November 2024 and ended 18 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr David Trennery's conduct towards a hospital patient in March 2021 amounted to serious misconduct, including visiting her when not clinically necessary, sharing personal details about his life and pursuing an improper emotional relationship. Allegations that touching was sexually motivated were not proved. The tribunal accepted his extensive remediation, full insight and low risk of repetition and decided his fitness to practise is not currently impaired, but issued a formal warning to mark the misconduct and uphold professional standards.
Charges
Between 23 and 25 March 2021, while working as a GP Specialty Trainee at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Dr Trennery pursued an inappropriate course of conduct towards Patient A, including visiting her on the wards when not clinically indicated, spending long periods talking to her when she was no longer under his care, touching her arms and legs with his hands, and saying words to the effect of 'you can message me, but not about doctor stuff'. He told her personal details about his life including marathon training, weight loss, his ex-partner's affair and borrowing money from his parents, showed her a topless photograph of himself, followed her drawing page on Facebook, gave her headphones and printed Shakespeare quotes. The Tribunal found this was in pursuit of an improper emotional relationship. The allegation that he moved his hand up Patient A's leg to the crease between her vagina and inner thigh, and that his actions were sexually motivated, were found not proved.
Findings
The Tribunal found that the proven facts amounted to serious misconduct, breaching paragraphs 1, 2, 53 and 65 of Good Medical Practice (2013) and the GMC's supplementary guidance on Maintaining a professional boundary and Doctors' use of social media. It concluded the conduct was behavioural rather than attitudinal and that Dr Trennery had undertaken extensive remediation including therapy, detailed reflections and targeted CPD on professional boundaries, consensual touch, self-disclosure, unconscious bias and use of social media. The Tribunal was satisfied that he had developed full insight, that the misconduct was unlikely to be repeated, and that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired. It nevertheless determined that a formal warning was necessary in the public interest and to mark the seriousness of the misconduct.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service 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.