Stephen Spencer

Introduction

Stephen Spencer is an operating department practitioner who stood on the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register under number ODP15254 and worked at Wrightington Hospital in Appley Bridge. On 10 September 2026, at the end of a substantive hearing that ran from 3 to 10 September 2026, a Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) panel found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct — including sexual harassment — and by dishonesty, and struck him off the register. The case began when his employer, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, referred him to the HCPC after an internal investigation into complaints by two female colleagues. Spencer did not engage with the regulatory process, and the hearing continued in his absence.

Background Information

Spencer worked as an operating department practitioner at Wrightington Hospital, Appley Bridge, part of Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, which referred him to the regulator after an internal investigation. His HCPC registration number was ODP15254. The published record does not state when he qualified, when he joined the trust, or any earlier disciplinary history, and this page does not guess at them. The concerns that reached the tribunal arose from incidents in the operating theatre environment in July and September 2022 involving two colleagues, referred to in the proceedings as Colleague A and Colleague D, and from a separate entry in a controlled drugs record.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings below come from an HCPTS panel determination, which decides allegations on the balance of probabilities. They are regulatory findings, not criminal convictions. Three original particulars were discontinued, and the panel did not prove that the conduct had the purpose of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment.

The first incident concerned Colleague A. In September 2022, while she stood near a patient working with Spencer, he moved from the head of the patient to where she stood by the patient’s feet and kissed her on her right cheek without warning. The tribunal heard she “thought that he was going to say something about the patient, but instead he kissed her on her right cheek”, leaving her feeling “shaken and uncomfortable”. She asked a friend and a male colleague whether she was being “oversensitive”; both agreed the kiss had been inappropriate. When managers confronted him, Spencer said he had kissed her to “congratulate her on a new relationship” — an explanation she denied, saying they had been talking about the patient.

The second incident concerned Colleague D, in July 2022. As she prepared to help lift a patient from an operating table to a bed, Spencer placed his hand on her waist and physically moved her to the foot end of the patient. After the patient had been moved and she was about to remove her theatre gown, Spencer came up behind her, unfastened the top part of her gown and “stroked her neck” for two or three seconds. When she told him to stop and said she could take her gown off herself, he “slipped his arm across the base of her waist”, untied the gown and then “squeezed her waist”, before commenting that he would have “liked to rip it off her”. Colleague D told investigators the touching was sexual because there was “no need” to touch her skin. The tribunal heard that “The touch of the neck was lingering, not an accidental brush,” and that “Her perception was that the registrant’s fingers were there quite deliberately”. The panel agreed with her evidence over Spencer’s claim that he had simply been trying to help remove her gown. It found that, in respect of Colleague D, he “had persisted with sexualised touching for his own gratification when expressly told that his conduct was unwanted”.

The case also involved dishonesty in a controlled drugs record: the panel found proved dishonest retrospective entries in a controlled drugs record using a colleague’s signature, including an incorrect entry in a controlled drugs book claiming that end-of-shift checks had been carried out when they had not. It distinguished effect from purpose: it found the proved effect of the sexual conduct but did not prove the alleged purpose of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment, and three original particulars were discontinued. Among the aggravating factors it listed repetition of breaches of professional boundaries, persistence of sexually motivated touching when told to stop, lack of insight and blame placed on the women who reported the conduct, lack of remorse and remediation, and potential for harm to service users. It found current impairment on personal and public grounds, a risk of repetition, and insufficient insight or remediation.

Public Reaction and Consequences

This is the one case in the published record with press coverage: the BBC reported the striking off on 21 September 2026 under the headline “Health worker struck off after kissing colleague”. Colleagues described Spencer as “leery”, and one colleague was left feeling “violated and intimidated”. He called the allegations “bang out of order” and said: “I’m old school and will always help women.” Interviewed about Colleague D’s account, he said he had been “fuming” and that the women had been “twisting the knife”. The concrete consequence was the striking-off order itself. MedicWatch, which maintains the practitioner-facing record of the decision, aggregates regulator outcomes and states it does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Current Status

Spencer is struck off the HCPC register. The panel ordered erasure on 10 September 2026, with an interim suspension of up to 18 months covering the appeal period or any appeal; the final order takes effect after the 28-day appeal period if no appeal is made. His MedicWatch profile records erasure (struck off the register) on 10 September 2026 and directs readers to check the official HCPC register for current status. The published record shows no appeal and no application for restoration.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Striking off ends Spencer’s UK registration as an operating department practitioner unless a future restoration application succeeds, and the panel’s findings — sexualised touching persisted with for his own gratification, dishonesty in a controlled drugs record, and blame directed at the women who reported him — explain why it saw no realistic prospect of insight or remediation. The removal forecloses his theatre career in the UK. The published record says nothing about his circumstances after the order, and nothing on this page should be read as going beyond it.

Sources

• *MedicWatch, “HCPTS orders Stephen Spencer’s removal following misconduct findings” — source
• *MedicWatch, “Stephen Spencer — Struck off the register | Health and Care Professions Council ODP15254” — source
• *BBC News, Jonny Humphries, “Health worker struck off after kissing colleague”, 21 September 2026 — source