Gail Ashington
Introduction
Gail Ashington is a radiographer who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number RA32420. On 5 November 2025, at the end of a substantive hearing that had run from 13 October, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) directed that she be struck off the register. The panel found that between August 2019 and March 2020 she performed excessive numbers of ultrasound examinations, rushed scans or spent insufficient time with patients, performed scans to an unacceptable standard, and ineffectively undertook umbilical artery trace Doppler scans — conduct it held amounted to misconduct rather than lack of competence, with her fitness to practise currently impaired. An 18-month interim suspension covers the appeal period.
Background Information
The published record identifies Ashington as a radiographer holding HCPC registration RA32420. The determination window does not name an employer or describe her training or career, and this page does not guess at them. MedicWatch, an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators without editorialising their findings, carries her case with erasure as the most recent published outcome, notes her registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for her current position.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Regulatory findings, not a criminal case. The findings below come from an HCPTS panel applying the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal proceedings form part of this case. The allegation was framed as amounting to lack of competence and/or misconduct; the panel resolved it expressly on the misconduct footing, finding the proved conduct did not amount to lack of competence.
The allegations concerned a defined period of roughly seven months, August 2019 to March 2020, across four particulars: that Ashington performed excessive numbers of ultrasound examinations; that she rushed scans or spent insufficient time with patients; that she performed scans to an unacceptable standard; and that she ineffectively undertook umbilical artery trace Doppler scans. The allegation stated that the conduct, if found proved, would amount to lack of competence and/or misconduct and that her fitness to practise was currently impaired. Applying the civil standard, the panel found Particulars 1 to 4 — and all of their sub-particulars — proved.
On characterisation, the panel drew the distinction at the heart of the case: the proved conduct did not amount to lack of competence, but it did amount to misconduct, and Ashington’s fitness to practise was found currently impaired on both personal and public grounds. In mitigation the panel weighed admissions made shortly before the hearing commenced, some reflection on her actions — which it judged very limited in nature and mainly focused upon herself — and her previous good regulatory character.
Against that, the aggravating factors were substantial. The panel found the conduct was repeated and sustained; that her actions caused harm to service users and had the potential to cause harm to other service users and/or colleagues; that she had stated she had no desire to “retrain”; and that she had demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, remorse and/or remediation. On that basis the panel directed that her name be struck from the HCPC Register and imposed an 18-month interim suspension for the appeal period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements from Ashington or any other party. The concrete consequences are the striking-off direction of 5 November 2025 and the 18-month interim suspension covering the appeal period. Erasure is the most severe sanction open to a fitness-to-practise panel, and the factors the panel recorded show why the case ended there: conduct repeated and sustained across roughly seven months, actual harm to service users with potential for more, and no meaningful insight, remorse or remediation, alongside a stated unwillingness to retrain. The admissions made shortly before the hearing, and the reflection the panel judged limited and self-focused, were the only mitigating features recorded.
Current Status
Ashington was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 5 November 2025, with an 18-month interim suspension in place during the appeal period. That interim order bridges the appeal window, keeping the sanction effective while any appeal is decided. Her MedicWatch profile records erasure as her most recent published outcome, notes her registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for her current position, including whether any appeal was pursued.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Ashington’s registration and her ability to work as a radiographer in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The case is a study in statutory characterisation: the panel was asked to consider lack of competence and/or misconduct and deliberately chose the latter, framing seven months of rushed, substandard scanning as a misconduct matter rather than a training deficit. With actual harm found, reflection judged limited and self-focused, and no desire to retrain stated, the mitigating material left little ground for a lesser outcome. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about her circumstances since the decision.