A Nigerian dietitian has been removed from the United Kingdom’s register of health professionals after a tribunal determined that she falsely claimed expertise in numerous medical specialities to secure a hospital role for which she was not qualified.
Ifeyinwa Chizube Ndulue-Nonso, previously registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, was struck off following a final hearing held between 2 and 10 March 2026 by the HCPC’s Conduct and Competence Committee.
According to findings published on the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service website on Friday, the panel concluded that Ndulue-Nonso, in August and September 2023, made false representations in her application for a Band 6 rotational dietitian post at the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust.
She reportedly claimed knowledge and experience in areas such as cancer, neurology, gastroenterology, respiratory medicine, artificial feeding, parenteral nutrition, dysphagia and several other specialities.
She commenced work at the trust on 19 February 2024 after relocating from Nigeria, but concerns were raised by supervisors within days of her resumption.
According to the panel, her line manager, Curtis Roberts, met with her on 28 February and found that her account of her professional experience in Nigeria did not align with what she had stated in her application.
He recorded in a supervision log that she was unable to explain basic conditions including coeliac disease, irritable bowel syndrome and eating disorders.
“She wasn’t able to tell me about coeliac disease, eating disorders, cancer, IBS or gastrointestinal disease and surgery. When I asked her about the above, she wasn’t sure on the difference between coeliac, IBS or any GI disease,” Roberts recorded.
He further noted that she stated she had never worked in critical care and had no experience of parenteral nutrition.
Her clinical supervisor, Lorna Haywood, observed that Ndulue-Nonso could not identify which part of the intestine follows the stomach, incorrectly stating it was the large intestine.
The panel stated that Haywood recorded that she “could not calculate a BMI correctly, she did not know what the signs or symptoms of dysphagia were, she could not tell me the risks of allowing somebody with dysphagia to eat standard diet, she did not know how to dietetically manage refeeding syndrome, she could not interpret biochemistry and she could not interpret symptoms.”
In a separate incident, Haywood took her to a hospital ward and asked her to identify a feeding tube visibly placed in a patient’s nose. Ndulue-Nonso identified it as a breathing tube.
She later told Haywood she was “confused as she isn’t used to seeing feeding tubes, despite telling me previously she has had a lot of experience with feeding tubes,” according to Haywood’s supervision log entry of 6 March.
The tribunal further noted that Roberts observed her searching online for the term “cerebrovascular accident” during a task before stating that she understood it.
When challenged, she admitted that she had looked it up. Roberts recorded that she subsequently acknowledged including information in her application that she did not understand, admitting she lacked knowledge of biochemistry and pharmacology and possessed only a basic understanding of human anatomy.
During cross-examination at the hearing, Ndulue-Nonso was asked about the function of the gallbladder. She responded that it was part of the kidney where urine is stored.
The tribunal found that her dishonesty was deliberate and sustained, noting that she had misrepresented her abilities during the application process, maintained those claims during interview and continued to assert knowledge she did not possess after commencing the role until directly challenged.
The panel rejected her assertion that she had only slightly exaggerated her experience, stating that it “did not accept that the Registrant did not intend to mislead, when as she says, she was viewing matters through a Nigerian perspective, because she has admitted or been found to have no knowledge or experience in many of the areas that she said she was a specialist in.”
“She wrote that she had in-depth knowledge and skills. She intended to give a misleading impression of her skills and abilities with a view to obtaining a role which required a high level of knowledge and skill,” the panel stated.
The tribunal further found that no harm came to patients only because supervisors ensured she did not undertake patient-facing duties.
“Giving a patient who is nil by mouth oral nutrition carries the risk of aspiration pneumonia, which can be life threatening,” the panel stated. It added that Haywood’s concern was that Ndulue-Nonso “would attempt a dietetic assessment and implement a plan that would cause serious harm.”
Rejecting lesser sanctions, the panel said conditions of practice would be unsuitable given the nature of her misconduct, her lack of insight and the extensive deficiencies identified.
It added that a suspension order would be “wholly inadequate to protect the public interest, maintain confidence in the profession, and uphold proper professional standards.”
The panel concluded that her “deliberate and persistent dishonesty constitutes a serious breach of professional standards and fundamentally undermines the trust that the public is entitled to place in the profession,” and that striking her off was the only proportionate sanction.
“The Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be incompatible with her remaining on the register,” the panel stated.
An interim suspension order of 18 months was also imposed to cover the 28-day appeal period, or until any appeal is determined.