Sarah Neita

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel had information before it that notice of today’s hearing had been sent to the Registrant by an email dated 24 January 2025, to her work and personal email address as held by the HCPC on the Register. The Panel noted that there is also a delivery confirmation of the email sent to the Registrant’s personal email address dated 24 January 2025.

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was satisfied that the notice contained the required particulars, including the time, date and information for joining the hearing. The Panel was also satisfied that the notice was sent within the 28-day period. The Panel was satisfied that notice had been appropriately served.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Procedure Rules and to take into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. Ms Khorassani submitted that it is in the public interest for the Substantive Review Hearing to proceed. She noted that she had written to the Registrant in respect of today’s hearing, seven days prior to it being listed and the Registrant had not responded. She noted that the Registrant has not responded to the notice of the hearing or provided any submissions and had not engaged with the HCPC since the last review. Ms Khorassani referred the panel to the authorities of R v Hayward, R v Jones (Anthony) [2001] 3 WLR 125 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162. She submitted that the Panel must balance the overriding interest of public protection with fairness to the Registrant.

4. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who directed the Panel to the relevant guidance contained in the HCPTS practice notes on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it had the discretion to proceed in a Registrant’s absence, however, this should be exercised with caution. The Legal Assessor referred the panel to the authorities of R v Hayward, R v Jones (Anthony), R v Purvis [2001] 3 WLR 125, GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and Sanusi v GMC [2019] EWCA Civ 1172.

5. The Panel, having found there to be good service, was satisfied that the Registrant ought to have been aware of today’s hearing. The Registrant has a responsibility to engage with her regulator and to provide up-to-date contact details.

6. The Panel noted that the Registrant has not requested an adjournment of matters. The Panel considered that the Registrant had over the years actively engaged in the hearings process but noted that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC for a significant period of time and had not provided representations for the purpose of the current hearing. The Panel considered the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from today’s hearing. The Panel determined that it was not likely that the Registrant would participate in these proceedings on a future date, if this hearing were to be adjourned and re-listed.

7. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note and took into account the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel noted that there is a statutory requirement for the current Order to be reviewed before it expires. In all the circumstance the Panel considered it was appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Public/ Private hearing

8. Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC submitted that this hearing should be held partly in private, under Rule 10 of the Procedure Rules 2003, which states: …the proceeding shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional, the complainant, any person giving evidence, or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing.

9. Ms Khorassani noted that there may be references during the hearing to the Registrant’s health which ought to be heard in private to protect the private life of the Registrant.

10. The Panel acknowledged its discretion to sit in private to hear matters relating to the Registrant’s health, for the protection of the Registrant’s private life. The Panel determined that it would sit in private in respect of any matters relating to the Registrant’s health. Therefore, the Panel determined that part of the hearing would be conducted in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Background

11. The Registrant was employed as an Occupational Therapist at the Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) from November 2009. The Registrant was primarily responsible for working with children with co- ordination difficulties in mainstream schools and with children with severe learning and movement disorders within Special Schools. The Registrant’s role was to meet patients and their families on both a one- to-one and group basis, assess patients, and set goals and targets for the development of their coordination.

12. There were some concerns within the Trust about the Registrant’s performance, which led to a Performance Management Plan being instituted, which was satisfactorily completed in May 2011. By then, in April 2011, the Registrant had been promoted to a Band 6 role, which required, on her part, more complex clinical reasoning and assessment. It also needed her to work at an increased pace.

13. In November 2010, Child 6 had been allocated to the Registrant, and she carried out an Initial Assessment in November 2010. By October 2011, the Registrant had still not written a report on this child.

14. The Registrant demonstrated further poor record keeping by a failure to complete relevant paperwork following her assessment of three other children. There were other examples of poor record keeping and failure to complete records within required timescales in June 2010, March 2011, October 2011 and January 2012. In February 2017, the Substantive Hearing panel, found all these matters, to amount to examples of lack of competence.

15. Particular 2 alleged that the Registrant had not demonstrated satisfactorily clinical practice in that, in a particular case, she had failed to follow up on her recommendation for a weighted hand-splint. In the view of the Substantive Hearing panel, this matter, which was found proved, was linked to the failures of record keeping and amounted to another example of lack of competence. That panel determined that there had been a pattern of failure on the Registrant’s part to take required action on cases in a timely manner. Although, in that panel’s stated view, reasons had contributed to the level of the Registrant’s ability to meet the required standards, she was unable sufficiently or consistently to improve the standard of her work.

16. In March 2012, the Registrant submitted her resignation to the Trust. She took with her, on leaving, a number of documents which contained confidential information about children who had been allocated to her and their families. These papers included supervision forms, caseload forms, reports and notes of action plans. The Substantive Hearing panel determined that there was no justification for removing these documents and that the decision of the Registrant to do so amounted to disrespect of the confidentiality of service users; as such, this amounted to misconduct.

17. The Substantive Hearing panel heard the case between the 20 – 28 February 2017 and found the particulars, outlined above, proved. The Substantive Hearing panel concluded that the Registrant was impaired on both the personal and public component and imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 2 years.

18. As outlined above, the Order has been reviewed on seven previous occasions (27 October 2017, 21 February 2019, 25 February 2020, 15 March 2021, 22 March 2022, 27 February 2023 and 26 March 2024. At each of the review hearings, the reviewing panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and extended the Conditions of Practice Order.

19. At the last review hearing, on 26 March 2024, the reviewing panel determined the following:

The Panel noted that since the last review hearing, the Registrant had
secured a permanent OT role and the Panel considered that this
progress on the Registrant’s part demonstrated both a commitment to
the OT profession but also to complying with the Conditions of Practice imposed.

However, notwithstanding this progress by the Registrant, when reviewing all of the material presented to it, the Panel had regard to the letter dated 22 March 2024, from MCH, and noted that it had been signed by three of her line managers and stated the following:

“I have been asked to write a letter to support the evidence which has been supplied by Sarah Neita in preparation for her hearing on 26th March 2024. I give permission for Sarah to share the case study evidence she has collated using a patient who was an inpatient within the stroke service. This case study information is only to be shared with the HCPC for the purposes of the hearing.

Background: Sarah started her employment with MCH in Jan 2022 where she was employed to work as a band 5 OT on an intermediate care in patient unit. Sarah continued to work in this role until Sept 2023 where she was redeployed to a stroke rehab unit still within MCH due to the intermediate care service undergoing a tender process. Sarah has been working as a band 5 OT on a stroke rehab unit since Oct 2023. Sarah has a development plan which she is working through which highlights her learning needs within the area of stroke as well as addressing some areas around her performance, such as expectations around caseload management, how many patients she should treat per day, and using systems effectively such as systems for managing annual leave. Sarah has asked me to write supporting the following sanctions: (i) Completing written assessments and clinical records within the required timeframe; (ii) Progressing cases by following up on recommendations for intervention.

(I)Completing written assessments and clinical records within the required timeframe; The evidence produced by Sarah in the case study does evidence that she is writing clinical notes within a 24-hour period. However, and this is not evidenced in this case study, Sarah is often staying late to write notes. Since working on the stroke rehab unit Sarah has managed a caseload of 3 (maximum) patients, and these have also been intermediate care patients with a similar presentation to those she treated on the intermediate care unit. Sarah struggles with time management. There is a realistic expectation that with Sarah’s current workload she should be able to complete the clinical records within her contracted hours. [REDACTED] There is an expectation that a band 5 OT working similar part time hours would manage a caseload of approx. 6 patients (with varying levels of need). The team have considered an adapted caseload [REDACTED] and feel 4 is an appropriate number. In the main whilst working on the stroke unit Sarah has only been able to manage 3 patients. Sarah is receiving weekly clinical supervision to support with caseload management and goal setting. Again, this is above the expected level of support for a band 5 OT. There have been 2 occasions where Sarah has failed to document in the clinical records (one regarding equipment and one regarding discharge planning). Sarah needed prompting to complete this documentation.

(ii)Progressing cases by following up on recommendations for intervention. The evidence provided by Sarah shows an element of her progressing patients – in this case study Sarah did complete the essential assessments such as initial assessment, ADLs, home environment and a family meeting. Sarah also shows that she frequently liaised with family members to keep them updated. However, as part of her development plan and supervision Sarah’s supervisors have collated case study evidence which shows that there are often periods of time when she does not treat patients on her caseload. With one patient, there was a period of 3 months with no reviews despite having an ongoing goal for the patient. She has also missed key assessments and therapy sessions and has not handed these over to other staff to complete. There are also examples when she has not actioned plans in a timely manner – such as completing an access visit and not ordering equipment within a suitable time frame. These examples have been discussed and shared with Sarah in supervision sessions.

[REDACTED]. Sarah is aware that the team have some concerns about her performance in this role. We have had a meeting where we discussed the case study evidence. We have signed Sarah’s CoP and her Development Plan as there are aspects of both which she has achieved. However as documented in this letter there are still concerns around her practice.’

In this Panel’s view, the Registrant’s identified failings are remediable. However, having regard to the material presented to it and having regard to the Registrant’s oral evidence, the Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated a lack of insight into her identified failings and the impact of them upon others, including colleagues and service users. In forming this view, the Panel noted that during the course of her oral evidence to the Panel she sought to apportion blame to others and also failed to take responsibility for those matters within her own control. The Registrant also sought to apportion significant blame to her employers, for what she claimed was “a lack of support” in her attempts to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order. Further, the Registrant also sought to qualify the concerns outlined by her managers, in MCH’s letter dated 22 March 2024, by blaming others.

The Panel also considered, as the previous reviewing panel did, that the Registrant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to it that she had adequately addressed the concerns raised. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the persuasive burden lay with the Registrant, and she had not provided any documentation to the HCPC in compliance with the Conditions of Practice Order until the morning of the hearing. The Panel also considered that the evidence which had been provided, was lacking. Furthermore, the Panel also noted that in addition to not complying with the Conditions of Practice Order by providing documents to the HCPC during the course of the twelve-month Order, the Registrant also failed to comply with the previous reviewing panel’s request that all documentation be provided to the HCPC at least two days prior to the review hearing.

In the Panel’s view, whilst it was sympathetic to her [REDACTED], the Registrant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that she had remedied her failings, nor had she provided the information in a timely fashion when it would have been abundantly clear to her that a review was forthcoming.

Further, in light of the matters outlined in MCH’s letter, the Panel was not satisfied that there was not a real risk of repetition of the failings and risks identified by the Substantive Hearing Panel.

Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired on the personal component.
The Panel next considered the public component. The Panel considered in view of the fact that it had determined that a risk of harm and a risk of repetition remained, that members of the public would not have confidence in the OT profession, or the HCPC as its regulator, if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice at the present time.

The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired the Panel next considered what sanction to impose. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, it reminded itself that any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive order that would protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity.

The Panel considered the option of a Caution Order however, decided that it would not provide adequate protection for the public.

The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy and noted that it stated that a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate in the following circumstances:

A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
i. the registrant has insight;
ii. the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
iii. there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent
the registrant from remediating;
iv. appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can
be formulated;
v. the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the
conditions;
vi. a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those
conditions have or are being met; and
vii. the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted
practice.

The Panel considered that ii) to vii), above, applied in this case. The
Panel also noted the Registrant’s engagement throughout the regulatory proceedings and that she had taken some steps towards demonstrating some insight and remedying her failings. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had only recently been able to secure employment and comply with the conditions of practice imposed.

Consequently, having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant should be afforded with a further opportunity to demonstrate that she is capable of safe, effective and independent practice and provided with a further opportunity to satisfy a future panel that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

The Panel considered a Suspension Order but determined that this would be disproportionate at this time.

The Panel considered that a further 12-month Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate, as it would provide the Registrant with sufficient time to demonstrate that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

The Panel also considered that a Conditions of Practice Order was the proportionate order to impose as it balanced the need to protect the public and the public interest, with the Registrant’s interests and permit her to continue working albeit in a restricted manner.

The Panel also considered that a reviewing panel would be assisted by the Registrant’s future engagement, in addition to the provision of the following documentation no less than 7 working days before the start of a future reviewing hearing:

i. references from the Registrant’s supervisors and/or managers
addressing her progress against her Conditions of Practice and in
particular Condition 2;

ii. a reflective piece to demonstrate the Registrant’s insight into her
failings and the impact on service users and colleagues;

iii. minutes from supervision sessions and/or evidence of supervision
sessions with her supervisors and/or managers (for example,
supervision notes available to the Registrant); and

iv. evidence of any further steps taken to maintain her skills, including
evidence of training and Continuing Professional Development
(PDP).

Submissions

20. The submissions outlined below are a summary of the parties’ submissions to the Panel and are not a verbatim account of the submissions made.

HCPC

21. Ms Khorassani briefly outlined the background of the case. She submitted that it was the HCPC’s position that the Registrant should be struck off from the register. Ms Khorassani noted that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC in respect of this hearing. She noted that the Panel would need to determine whether the Registrant's fitness to practise remains impaired or whether they have done enough to address the concerns raised by the previous panel. She referred the Panel to the case of Abraham v GMC [2008] which makes it clear that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that they have fully acknowledged the deficiency which led to their original finding of impairment and have addressed that impairment sufficiently through insight, application, education supervision or other achievements.

22. Ms Khorassani submitted that the HCPC wished to highlight that the Registrant has not engaged recently with the HCPC process and therefore she submitted there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the Registrant was no longer impaired.

23. Ms Khorassani submitted the factors to be taken into account by the Panel included the following;
i) the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
ii) the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
iii) the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve his or her professional knowledge and skills;
iv) whether any other fitness to practise issue have arisen;
v) whether the Registrant has complied with the existing order and, if it is a condition of practice order, has practised safely and effectively within the terms of that order.

24. Ms Khorassani submitted there had now been eight substantive review hearings including the present hearing. She noted that the Registrant has been subject to an order for some eight years, and the previous reviewing panel gave a very clear direction to the Registrant in respect of the supporting documents which would assist the Panel. The previous panel noted that this should be served no less than 7 working days before this hearing. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant had not complied with this direction and as a result the HCPC submit that the Registrant remains impaired and as such a striking-off order should be imposed.

25. Ms Khorassani stated that the HCPC has no update from the Registrant on any progress they may have made. She noted that the email sent to the Registrant’s work email “bounced back” therefore indicating to the HCPC that it did not have an update address for the Registrant’s place of employment. Ms Khorassani stated it was unclear whether the Registrant was currently working as an Occupational Therapist.

26. Ms Khorassani submitted the panel would need to have regard to both the personal and public components of fitness to practise which include the need to protect service users, to maintain confidence in the profession, and in the regulatory process and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Furthermore, she submitted that the Registrant must abide by the standards of conduct performance and ethics. Ms Khorassani highlighted the relevant standards.

27. Ms Khorassani referred the Panel to the test set by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report and adopted by the High Court in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). She referred the Panel to the overriding objective and submitted that the Registrant has not engaged with the regulator in a manner that would assist the panel.

28. In respect of available sanctions, she invited the panel to strike the Registrant's name from the register. She submitted that any other sanction would not be in the public interest.
Registrant

29. The Registrant did not provide the Panel with any submissions.

Panel approach

30. The Panel took into account the documents it had been provided. It also had regard to the submissions.

31. The Panel considered the relevant Practice Note issued by the HCPTS, ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Order’ and ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’, together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

32. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had reminded it that the purpose of the review is to consider the issue of current impairment of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the following:

i. the Panel could have regard to a number of factors when reviewing the Order. Namely, the previous panel’s findings, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of insight and the risk of repetition;

ii. the Panel should have regard to the relevant Practice Note issued by the HCPTS ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Order’ and ‘Fitness to Practise ‘Impairment’’;

iii. the Panel could take account of a range of issues, when considering current impairment, which in essence comprises the two components:

a) the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant; and

b) the ‘public’ component: the need to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

iv. it is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’; and

v. the principle of proportionality required the Panel to consider the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

Decision

33. In making its decision, the Panel had regard to both the personal and public component of impairment. The Panel also had regard to the previous panel’s determinations. However, the Panel conducted a comprehensive review of all the material before it today which included the following:

i. The HCPC hearing bundle – 166 pages;
ii. A bundle of documents from the Previous review hearing in 26 March 2024- 102 pages.

34. The Panel noted that the review process requires a Registrant to demonstrate both developed insight and remediation before returning to unrestricted practice. There is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate that she is safe to return to practice.

35. The Panel considered that there has been no material change in the Registrant’s circumstances since the last Substantive Order Review hearing, and the Registrant has not discharged the burden of demonstrating that she is safe to return to practice.

36. The Registrant has not provided any evidence in respect of her current working practices, nor of any steps to address insight or remediation since the last hearing.

37. The Panel noted that the reviewing Panel gave very clear instructions as to the type of evidence that should be presented at a subsequent review namely;

“i. references from the Registrant’s supervisors and/or managers
addressing her progress against her Conditions of Practice and in
particular Condition 2;

ii. a reflective piece to demonstrate the Registrant’s insight into her
failings and the impact on service users and colleagues;

iii. minutes from supervision sessions and/or evidence of supervision
sessions with her supervisors and/or managers (for example,
supervision notes available to the Registrant); and

iv. evidence of any further steps taken to maintain her skills, including
evidence of training and Continuing Professional Development
(PDP).”

38. The Panel considered that the Registrant has failed to provide any of the above evidence despite the clarity of the instructions given by the previous panel.

39. The Panel noted the previous review panel’s conclusions as follows;

i) The Registrant had demonstrated a lack of insight into her identified failings and the impact of them upon others, including colleagues and service users.
ii) The Registrant also sought to apportion significant blame to her employers and others, for what she claimed was “a lack of support” in her attempts to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order.
iii) The Registrant failed to provide sufficient evidence that she had adequately addressed the concerns raised and remedied her failings.
iv) There was a real risk of repetition of the failings and risks identified by the Substantive Hearing Panel.

40. In the absence of any information from the Registrant, the Panel considered that the conclusions of the previous panel remain present. The Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains and the Registrant has not addressed the risks identified by the last Substantive review hearing panel.

41. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired on the personal component.

42. The Panel next considered the public component. The Panel considered in view of the fact that it had determined that a risk of harm and a risk of repetition remained, that members of the public would not have confidence in the Occupational Therapist profession, or the HCPC as its regulator, if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice at the present time.

43. Consequently, the Registrant has failed to persuade the Panel that her fitness to practice is no longer impaired. In the absence of recent examples of developed insight and in the absence of evidence of steps taken to remediate the initial concerns the Panel finds that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components.

44. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired the Panel next considered what sanction to impose. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, it reminded itself that any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive order that would protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity.

45. The Panel considered the option of taking no action or giving a Caution Order however, decided that it would not provide adequate protection for the public.

46. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy and noted that it stated that a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate in the following circumstances:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

i. the registrant has insight;
ii. the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
iii. there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent
the registrant from remediating;
iv. appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can
be formulated;
v. the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the
conditions;
vi. a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those
conditions have or are being met; and
vii. the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted
practice.”

47. The Panel concluded that such a measure would neither be appropriate nor workable given that there must be a willingness to comply with conditions. The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC, and the Panel has no information in respect of her current work, as such the Panel determined that conditions of practice would not be workable or sufficient to protect the public. Whilst the conduct was potentially remediable, the Registrant demonstrated little insight at the last review panel and the Panel at today’s hearing had little confidence that the Registrant would comply with any conditions set.

48. The Panel considered a Suspension Order. While the Registrant at the substantive hearing showed some insight and the final order hearing Panel considered that her misconduct was remediable, since that determination the Registrant has been subject to an order of nearly an eight-year period. Despite the length of time and the opportunities afforded to the Registrant to develop insight and engage with remediation the Registrant has failed to demonstrate she is safe to return to practice.

49. The Panel considered with care paragraph 121 of the sanctions policy which states as follows

“A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

50. The panel concluded that there was no recent evidence before it in respect of the Registrant’s insight and there was also no evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy her failings hence the risk of repetition remained high. As such the panel considered that a suspension order would not be sufficient to protect the public, nor would it serve the public interest to continue to restrict the Registrant’s practise for a further period when there is no evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy her failings.

51. The Panel considered a further period of suspension would serve no useful purpose, as the position at the end of any further period ordered by the Panel would likely be exactly as it is at present.

52. The Panel therefore went on to consider a striking off order. The Panel noted the guidance provided at paragraph 131 of the sanctions policy, which provides as follows;

“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.

53. The Panel considered on the basis of all the evidence before it that the Registrant lacks insight, has failed to address her competency issues over an 8 year period and is unwilling to resolve matters, and as such the Panel considered any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, or maintain public confidence in the profession, and in the regulatory process.

54. The Panel was of the clear view that this was not a case in which striking off could be the only outcome given the nature and gravity of the original concerns. However, what made striking off appropriate and proportionate in the present case was the lack of evidence that the Registrant was willing to resolve matters, the length of time which the Registrant had be subject to an order (which had not resulted in any meaningful change) and the Registrant’s lack of engagement.

55. As a result, the Panel ruled out any lesser sanction as being sufficient to address the public interest considerations. For that reason, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was the most proportionate and appropriate order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike-off Ms Sarah Neita from the Register.

The Order imposed today will apply from 28 March 2025.

History of Hearings for Sarah Neita