Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS orders David Woodhouse to be struck off after misconduct findings

The HCPTS panel found misconduct and impaired fitness to practise, but rejected several allegations and the lack-of-competence ground. It also imposed interim suspension for the appeal period.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 25 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 David Woodhouse, occupational therapist (Health and Care Professions Council OT55272).

Decision date: 25 August 2026 · Hearing started 17 August 2026 and ended 25 August 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel ordered David Woodhouse to be struck off after finding misconduct in patient care, records, professional boundaries and discriminatory comments. It rejected several allegations and found no lack of competence. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired, citing repeated conduct and a lack of insight or remediation. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal period, or an appeal if brought, for up to 18 months. The striking-off order takes effect under the applicable appeal arrangements.

Charges

The HCPC alleged that, during locum work in September 2023 and January-February 2024, David Woodhouse worked beyond his occupational therapy scope, made unprofessional and religiously discriminatory comments, provided inadequate care, exercised poor clinical judgement and kept inadequate records. The allegations included patient prioritisation, equipment, discharge planning and treatment concerns. Misconduct and lack of competence were alleged as alternative grounds for impairment.

Findings

The HCPTS panel found serious misconduct in working beyond his scope, religiously discriminatory comments, an insensitive comment to a patient, delegating a personal care assessment inappropriately, failing to order a wheelchair, unjustified kitchen trolley recommendations, failing to identify a suitable discharge bedroom, and deficient records for nine patients. It did not prove the patient-prioritisation allegations (5b and 6), unsuitable sling allegation (7b), failure to discuss the trolley with a physiotherapist (8a(ii)), inaccurate measurements (9a), or the hand-treatment and compression-glove allegations (9c). Two further comments to a colleague were proved but did not amount to serious misconduct. The panel expressly rejected lack of competence as a statutory ground. It found impairment on both personal and public grounds and ordered striking off. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal period and, if appealed, the appeal's determination, for a maximum of 18 months; this is not the duration of the striking-off order.

Mitigating factors

• The Registrant had, to a limited extent, engaged in the HCPC hearing process; • The Registrant had to a small degree expressed an apology for any possible adverse impact his words may have had upon Patient C however, this was a heavily qualified apology; • The Panel did note that the Registrant had encountered problems with the MORSE system in the Western Isles, however, as an experienced OT who had worked in a locum capacity, the Registrant should have been able to adapt to and adopt new processes and/or seek suitable help.

Aggravating factors

• The absence of any evidence of remorse, insight, apology or remediation; • There were multiple breaches of HCPC Standards over what was a very limited time scale. • A disregard and lack of adherence to training and policies at two employing organisations involved in this fitness to practise case, and evidence of similar behaviour previously. • Putting patients at the risk of harm. • Causing actual harm to Patient C who had found the Registrant’s comment insensitive and hurtful. • Breach of professional boundaries on two occasions involving Patient’s A, (speech and language) and C (uninvited intervention with a colleague’s patient). • Had expressed discriminatory views. • Attitudinal issues which manifested itself in failure to treat colleagues with respect; defiance in the face of justifiable criticism; and a lack of understanding of the impact his personal conduct had on fellow practitioners. • Breach of trust demonstrated by an Inability to work in a professionally collaborative way with colleagues within three different organisations. • The possibility of a repetition of the misconduct. The Panel noted that within the determination from 2023, the Registrant was recorded as having said he was “ashamed” of his behaviour, and that it would not be repeated. However, eleven days after that fitness to practise hearing had concluded the Registrant repeated his behaviour within his locum position at the Western Isles. • As a Band 7 OT the Registrant would have been expected to be a role model for junior colleagues and help to set the standard.

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.