Irene B Murray
Introduction
Irene B Murray is a former chiropodist and podiatrist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). In February 2026, after a final hearing that ran across more than two weeks, an HCPC panel struck her off the register over clinical care of diabetic patients that the regulator said fell below the standards the profession requires — failings spanning missed ulceration, unassessed infections and absent referrals across a series of appointments in autumn 2020 .
Background Information
Podiatry occupies a deceptively quiet corner of clinical risk. For diabetic patients, a foot ulcer or an undrained infection can escalate to amputation or sepsis, which is why national practice layers assessments — vascular checks, risk stratification, escalation to multi-disciplinary teams — over routine appointments. Murray worked as a chiropodist/podiatrist in that environment, and the allegations against her concerned a run of appointments with diabetic and at-risk patients between September and November 2020. Her case was heard alongside an allegation that her fitness to practise was also impaired by her health, an issue the panel separated from the clinical concerns .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Struck off after a public hearing. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired and directed removal from the register on 18 February 2026.
The alleged failings read as a pattern. On 22 September 2020, treating Patient 1, she is alleged to have neither considered nor recorded diabetic risk stratification, not to have recognised ulceration, and to have referred the patient inappropriately for nail surgery. On 14 October 2020 she is said to have skipped a primary patient assessment for Patient 2 altogether. On 10 November 2020, with Patient 3 — a new patient with diabetes — the allegations include no primary or diabetic assessment, an incomplete vascular assessment, no record of the reason for a previous foot amputation, and no risk stratification .
The infection cases carried the sharpest risk. With Patient 4, on 25 September 2020, she is alleged to have conducted an insufficient vascular assessment and not requested a culture despite identifying an infection; a week later, on 2 October 2020, to have failed to manage or escalate that infection, booking another appointment with no active treatment plan and not requesting antibiotics. With Patient 9 she is alleged to have made no onward referral of a new diabetic foot to the multi-disciplinary team or inter-departmental clinic on 19 October 2020, and on 23 October 2020 to have left ulcer dimensions undocumented, the follow-up plan inadequate, and the practice nurse uncontacted. Two further appointments — Patient 13 on 22 October 2020, with non-palpable pulses not investigated by Doppler, and Patient 17 on 7 October 2020 — completed the pattern .
Public Reaction and Consequences
Murray engaged with the hearing and advanced preliminary arguments, including an application that the entire case be heard in private to protect her and her family’s anonymity. The panel rejected a wholesale privacy order, noting that redactions and anonymised witnesses already protected personal material, and heard the clinical case in public. It found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence and directed that her name be struck from the register, with a right of appeal to the Court of Session in Scotland noted on the order .
Current Status
Murray was removed from the HCPC register with effect from the February 2026 decision. The striking-off order ends her registration as a chiropodist/podiatrist unless successfully appealed. Her erasure appears in the regulator-decision listings that track UK healthcare discipline, and the underlying determination remains the public record of what the panel found .
Impact on Their Career/Life
For a clinician, striking off is the terminus of a professional life: no registration, no NHS or private practice, and a public determination explaining why. Murray’s case illustrates the specific fragility of diabetic foot care — the panel’s case was not about a single dramatic error but about assessments skipped, infections left without cultures or antibiotics, and ulcerations that went unrecognised or unreferred across weeks. Each omission was individually small; together they described a practice in which the patients least able to tolerate delay were the ones least protected. The panel’s decision to hear the case in public, despite her privacy application, also reaffirms that clinical competence in the NHS is examined openly .