Lancashire hospital practitioner struck off by tribunal

Stephen Spencer worked for Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and transferred internally to Wrightington Hospital in February 2022.

Wrightington Hospital is near Appley Bridge and, although operated by the Greater Manchester-based trust, is within Lancashire.

A Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service panel considered Mr Spencer’s case at a hearing held between September 3 and September 10.

He did not attend the remote hearing and had not been in contact with the Health and Care Professions Council since June 2025.

Wrightington Hospital (Image: Google Maps)

The panel concluded he had chosen not to participate and decided it was fair to proceed in his absence.

It found that, on September 1, 2022, Mr Spencer retrospectively completed an entry relating to an end-of-shift controlled-drugs audit from the previous day.

The record wrongly indicated that the audit had been completed on August 31 and that another colleague had carried out the first check.

Mr Spencer copied that colleague’s signature despite having no evidence that the check had taken place and no permission to sign on his behalf.

During the hospital trust’s internal investigation, Mr Spencer admitted copying the signature. He said he had been trying to prevent the colleague from getting into trouble.

However, the tribunal found his actions were dishonest because the entry was intended to make later readers believe the audit had taken place and had been signed by the other practitioner.

It said proper accounting for controlled drugs was a legal requirement and Mr Spencer should instead have reported the missing entry to management so the matter could be investigated.

The panel also upheld allegations that he crossed professional boundaries with two female colleagues during separate incidents at Wrightington Hospital in 2022.

It found the behaviour was unwanted, violated their dignity and created an intimidating working environment.

Mr Spencer had described himself during an internal interview as “old-school” and accused the women who had complained of being “bang out of order”.

The tribunal said he had shown no meaningful insight into the impact of his behaviour, provided no evidence of remediation and attempted to blame those who had reported him.

It concluded there was a high risk that the misconduct could be repeated.

Although the panel said there had been no direct harm to patients, it found that behaviour which left colleagues uncomfortable or worried for their safety could affect concentration, teamwork and patient care.

The panel considered lesser sanctions but ruled that taking no action or issuing a caution would be insufficient.

Conditions of practice were rejected because Mr Spencer had not engaged with the regulatory process, meaning the panel could not be confident he would comply with restrictions.

A suspension was also considered, but the panel said there was no evidence that he understood the seriousness of his behaviour or was willing to address the concerns.

It concluded that striking him from the professional register was the only proportionate sanction capable of protecting the public, maintaining professional standards and preserving confidence in the profession.