Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Paramedic struck off after serious failures in care of three patients

The HCPC panel found repeated clinical misconduct and a high risk of repetition, while rejecting three allegations. It ordered striking off and a separate interim suspension for the appeal period.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 August 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 Victor M Nugent, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA07397).

Decision date: 13 August 2026 · Hearing started 3 August 2026 and ended 13 August 2026

In plain English

The panel ordered paramedic Victor M Nugent to be struck off after finding serious failures in the care of three patients. These included assessment, treatment, escalation and record-keeping problems. Three allegations were not proved, including a claim about administering blood products that were outside his scope of practice. The panel found no demonstrated insight or remediation and a high risk of repetition. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal period.

Charges

Allegations concerned assessment, treatment, escalation and record-keeping failures involving three patients attended in February 2021, April 2021 and July 2022, alleged to amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.

Findings

The panel found serious misconduct in the proved clinical failures, considering conscious decisions and attitude the appropriate basis rather than lack of competence. It rejected allegations that Patient A was not rolled onto her back, that the registrant failed to administer blood products to Patient B, and that he failed to record worsening-care advice for Patient C; no evidence was offered on the last allegation. The proved failures included delayed assessments and oxygen, inadequate escalation, bleeding management, history-taking, recognition of red flags, records and handover. The panel found impairment on both personal and public grounds, no demonstrated insight, remorse or remediation, and a high repetition risk. It ordered striking off. A separate interim suspension of up to 18 months covers the appeal period. The decision does not establish that his failings caused the patients' deaths.

Aggravating factors

a. the Registrant had not complied with the duty of candour – he has a professional responsibility to be open, honest, and candid when things go wrong with the care, treatment, or service that he has provided, as set out in the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016); b. the misconduct was repeated, with the Registrant apparently taking no action to address the clinical concerns identified when he was obliged to do so by the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016); c. lack of insight – the Registrant gave no indication of understanding or taking responsibility for the concerns proved against him, particularly in his email of 9 April 2025; d. lack of remorse – the Registrant had not shown any signs of remorse for his conduct; e. lack of remediation – the Registrant had provided no indication that he has taken any steps to address the concerns.

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.