A London paramedic’s fabricated story regarding her sister’s alleged hospitalization has resulted in her termination after evidence surfaced on social media disproving her claims. Natalie Twomey had notified her superiors that her sister was in intensive care in order to miss work, but festive images posted on her sister’s Facebook page revealed the latter participating in holiday preparations at home.
In November 2022, Twomey reported sick to the London Ambulance Service, asserting, „My sister has deteriorated again and had to drive back to Norfolk to be with her.“ However, a tribunal later established that this assertion was untrue. The Facebook posts illustrated her sister putting up Christmas decorations, prompting scrutiny of Twomey’s claims.
Details of Misconduct and Investigation
When confronted during a meeting in April 2023, Twomey suggested that her sister’s husband had posted the updates while she was hospitalized. The misconduct panel ultimately found that these posts contradicted Twomey’s statements to the London Ambulance Service.
In June 2023, Twomey was reassigned from her frontline duties after she reported for work with a smell of alcohol and attempted to attribute this to a patient who was vomiting. However, another paramedic did not corroborate her account.
Subsequent Actions and Legal Troubles
After being placed under restrictions limiting her practice, Twomey misled authorities about her character while renewing her registration. She falsely claimed that a knee and back injury necessitated her non-patient duties and deceived another prospective employer regarding the circumstances of her departure from the London Ambulance Service, asserting that she had not been terminated and was not under investigation.
In April 2024, Twomey was convicted of drink driving while on duty as a custody medic at a police station. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) deemed the claims against her as substantiated and decided that a striking-off order was warranted. The panel remarked, „The Registrant’s behaviour was serious, persistent and deliberate. It involved dishonesty, and a criminal conviction that had an impact on the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The Registrant lacks insight into her dishonesty and her failure to co-operate with the HCPC. The Panel was of the view that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public.“
For further information, please contact me at callum.cuddeford@reachplc.com
