A dietitian who secured a senior NHS role after overstating her experience has been struck off after colleagues discovered she lacked fundamental knowledge of anatomy, nutrition and clinical practice, according to a Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) ruling.
Ifenyinwa Chizube Ndulue-Nonso was appointed as a Band 6 rotational dietitian at Manchester Royal Infirmary in 2024 after moving from Nigeria to the UK. She had claimed on her application and during interview to have broad experience treating a range of health conditions, including nutrition-related diseases, eating disorders and cancer.
But within days of starting the role, colleagues became concerned about serious gaps in her knowledge and inconsistencies in the information she had provided about her background.
According to the tribunal findings, she struggled to answer basic questions about dietetics, had difficulty calculating body mass index (BMI) and demonstrated only a limited understanding of human anatomy. Concerns also emerged after she reportedly confused the small and large intestines, could not identify a feeding tube and was unable to explain coeliac disease. She was also said to have wrongly believed radiology was used to treat heart failure.
Her lack of knowledge prompted Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust to launch an investigation and suspend her within weeks, citing concerns that she was unsafe to practise. A disciplinary hearing later found her guilty of gross misconduct, and her appeal was unsuccessful.
The HCPTS panel concluded that Ndulue-Nonso had deliberately misled the trust on her application form and during her interview, and was not qualified for the role she had taken on. The panel said her dishonesty was intentional and premeditated, and that she had much to gain personally from obtaining employment in the UK.
It also found that no patients were harmed only because supervisors took precautions and prevented her from carrying out patient-facing duties.
Ndulue-Nonso reportedly told investigators that she had overstated her knowledge “a bit” and suggested the matter reflected cultural differences. However, the panel rejected that explanation.
She had applied for the post in late 2023 and was the only candidate interviewed. She scored 28 out of 45 in the interview process and received satisfactory references from previous employers before starting work on 19 February 2024.
The case has raised concerns about recruitment checks, professional oversight and patient safety in clinical settings.
