Aleena Tahir

Profession: Physiotherapist

Registration Number: PH124200

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 08/01/2025 End: 17:00 10/01/2025

Location: Virtually via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Hearing has not yet been held

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

Allegation (as amended at the hearing)

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH124200) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:

1. On or around 27 July 2022 you:

a. Inappropriately allowed your relative who was not a fellow employee to access PracticePal, the online patient system which contained confidential service user information.
b. Inappropriately allowed your relative who was not a fellow employee to input notes for Service User A and/or Service User B.

2. On or around 27 July 2022:

a. you instructed and/or allowed your relative who was not a fellow employee to add notes for Service User A and/or Service User B when you had not actually seen them to complete your appointment with them, or, in the alternative
b. you inappropriately inputted notes for Service User A and/or Service User B when you had not actually seen them to complete your appointment with them.

3. Your conduct in relation to Particulars 2 a) and/or 2b) above was dishonest.

4. The matters described in Particulars 1, 2 a) and b), and/or 3 constitute misconduct.

5. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired

 

 

ctise is impaired

 

 

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of the Allegation

1. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Slack made an application to amend the Allegation. The proposed amendments were set out in the HCPC statement of case. Mr Slack submitted that the proposed amendments were minor, did not change the substance of the Allegation, and properly reflected the evidence.

2. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Williamson did not oppose the application to amend the Allegation.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. She confirmed that the Panel has a discretionary power to make amendments to the Allegation, provided the amendments do not create unfairness for the Registrant and are appropriate.

4. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to amend the Allegation as set out in the HCPC statement of case. The amendments are not opposed and are appropriate to reflect the evidence and ensure that the Allegation is not defeated on a technicality.

Hearing in private

5. Ms Williamson made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private to protect the Registrant’s private life, where any reference was made to details of the Registrant’s health.

6. Mr Slack did not oppose the application.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that there is a public interest in open justice as explained in the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private”, but the Panel may exercise its discretion to hear all or part of the case in private to protect the private life of the Registrant or other individuals.

8. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to hear part of the case in private where references were made to details of the Registrant’s health. The remainder of the case should be heard in public in accordance with the principle of open justice.

Background

9. The Registrant is a registered Physiotherapist and at the time of the events she was employed by 1PhysioUK (“the Company”). The Company is described by the Registrant as A & A Medical.

10. The Company raised concerns about the Registrant after it was alleged that service users of hers were marked as having attended appointments when they had not, and treatment notes were subsequently added to the service users’ medical records via the Company’s online patient system, PracticePal, allegedly by the Registrant’s relative, who was not an employee of the company.

11. Concerns were identified by the Company when a member of the Company’s administration team spoke to Service User A regarding the rearranging of their appointment. Although there was a record of Service User A’s appointment with the Registrant on 27 July 2022, the Registrant had texted Service User A to rearrange the appointment.

12. Subsequently, Ms Curtis, clinic and HR manager at the Company, contacted the service users about the appointments with the Registrant in the afternoon on 27 July 2022. Service Users A and B both had their appointments rearranged by the Registrant. Despite this, the Registrant had marked the appointment diary as “complete” for both service users’ appointments. Treatment notes had also been entered onto Service Users A and B’s notes despite the appointments not taking place.

13. BC conducted a disciplinary meeting with the Registrant on 3 August 2022. The meeting was recorded, and the recording was provided to the Panel as part of the evidence relied on by the HCPC. During this meeting, the Registrant gave different accounts, one of which was that she had allowed her relative to access the Company’s appointment diary system, to update Service Users A and B’s appointments as completed, and to add treatment notes.

14. Particular 1 of the Allegation states that the Registrant allowed a relative to access PracticePal and input notes for Service Users A and B when the relative was not an employee of the Company and so should not have had access to the system and the confidential patient information. Particular 2 of the Allegation alleges that the Registrant instructed or allowed her relative to input notes for Service Users A and b despite their appointments not taking place. In the alternative, it is alleged that it was the Registrant who recorded those notes without carrying out the appointments. Particular 3 of the Allegation alleges that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 2(a) and/ or 2(b) was dishonest.

Registrant’s admission

15. The Registrant admitted particular 2(b) of the Allegation.

16. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Admissions. She advised that it is open to the Panel to find a fact proved on the basis of an admission, provided the admission is unequivocal. However, in this case the Panel should note the structure of particular 2 of the Allegation. Particular 2(b) is an alternative to the HCPC’s primary case, as set out in particular 2(a). The Panel may therefore decide to defer a decision on whether the accept the admission until it has heard the evidence and made a decision on particular 2(a).

17. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It decided not to make any findings of fact on particular 2(b), because of the possible alternative finding as set out in particular 2(a).

Decision on facts

Evidence

18. The Panel was provided with and read or listened to the following evidence:

• HCPC final hearing bundle (including statement of Ms Curtis)
• Disciplinary meeting recording
• Registrant’s bundle (including statement of Ms AI, the Registrant’s relative)
• Registrant’s statement

19. The Panel heard evidence from Ms Curtis. In her statement BC explained the circumstances in which the concerns relating to the Registrant’s records of appointments with Service Users A and B on 27 July 2022 had come to her attention. BC then provided a description of the disciplinary meeting with the Registrant and her perception of the Registrant’s responses. BC outlined that a further concern came to light during the disciplinary meeting because the Registrant admitted that she had allowed her “sister” to access PracticePal. The Registrant referred to her relative as her “sister” during the disciplinary meeting. During the disciplinary meeting Ms Curtis’s perception was that the Registrant was laughing and, she told the Registrant that that this was not funny.

20. In answer to questions from Ms Williamson, BC confirmed that the appointments due to take place on 27 July 2022 for Service Users A and B were for 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. and both were follow-up appointments booked by the Registrant. BC took a screen shot of the Registrant’s diary, but this screenshot was not taken until after the disciplinary meeting on 3 August 2022. BC did not carry out an analysis of when the entries in the Registrant’s diary were made, but she said that when she first looked at the diary it only included the word “completed” and did not include the words “patient not seen”.

21. BC confirmed that her camera was not working during the disciplinary meeting and she agreed that the Registrant might have felt intimidated because she was unable to see the person who was asking questions. BC also agreed that the answers given by the Registrant were contradictory and suggested that the Registrant may have changed her narrative because she realised that what she had done was not right.

22. BC was asked about her perception that the Registrant was laughing and whether it crossed her mind that the Registrant was very anxious. BC said that she is experienced in conducting disciplinary hearings and was accustomed to all sorts of reactions. She could understand the Registrant being anxious, but that she appeared to be finding it funny.

23. BC was asked about the notes entered for Service User A and whether they could have been made by someone who is not medically qualified. BC said that the entries could have been made by someone who is not qualified if they were told what they should write.

24. The Panel heard evidence from the Registrant. In her written statement the Registrant stated that she, and not her “sister”, had entered information into Practicepal that the appointments with Service Users A and B had been “completed” and added the details of the patient appointments. In oral evidence she said that this was a “big mistake” and she acknowledged that she had lied to BC in the disciplinary hearing.

25. She said that her laptop battery was running down and she needed to complete the notes before midnight. She said that she completed notes on Practicepal for all of her afternoon patients and Service Users A and B at approximately 8.45 p.m. She said that she had forgotten that she had not seen Service Users A and B. She had contacted Service Users A and B by text message to rearrange their appointments and this change was not logged in the Practicepal diary system because she did not have access to the internet in her work location.

26. The Registrant told the Panel that on reflection she now acknowledges that it would seem ridiculous that she should have acted as she did without being dishonest, but she said that her brain was “stuck somewhere”. She said that her position at the Company was her first full time job in the UK and she was not aware at the time of the opportunity to obtain a sick note

27. The Registrant said that her treatment notes for Service Users A and B were based on those from previous sessions she had conducted with those service users. She acknowledged that this was “really inappropriate”. She said that she had been told by the previous CEO of the Company that if the handwritten notes were missing the notes could be copied from the notes of previous appointments. She said that she has now learned that this was entirely unethical and inappropriate.

28. The Registrant agreed that in the disciplinary meeting with BC she had volunteered the information relating to the assistance provided by her “sister”. She said that in the disciplinary meeting she became confused and nervous and that it was too late to correct the information she had given. The Registrant said that her “sister” would not have been able to assist in the way described due to the limits of her education.

29. The Registrant was asked about her undated email to Mr Aarons, the Company’s managing director, which was sent following the disciplinary hearing. The Registrant stated that she had requested that her “sister” help her, but that she did not allow access to the software. The Registrant acknowledged she had not taken the opportunity in this email to clarify the exact role her sister played and did not say that she had lied to BC in the disciplinary hearing.

30. The Registrant said that she had not received any induction from the Company, had not been provided with a copy of the policies listed by Ms Curtis, and at the time was not aware of GDPR requirements.

31. The Registrant was asked questions by the Panel about her previous training and experience. She said that her previous training at Sheffield Hallam University had not included patient confidentiality and that her university placements did not require her to complete service user records.

32. Through an interpreter, the Panel heard oral evidence from Ms AI, who is the Registrant’s relative, and described as the Registrant’s “sister”.

33. Ms AI was asked questions about the preparation of her witness statement and struggled to answer those questions. The Panel was informed by Ms Williamson that the statement was prepared in a meeting with the Registrant’s solicitor with the benefit of assistance in translation for Ms AI.

34. Ms AI stated that she did not use the Registrant’s work computer and that she was unable to do so. She said that she stayed with the Registrant for a week and provided assistance with childcare while the Registrant was unwell. Ms AI was unable to answer questions about the Registrant’s work, and was only able to state that the Registrant was not well and decided to finish her work at home.

Submissions on facts

35. In relation to the HCPC primary case, Mr Slack submitted that the Panel should find particulars 1(a), 1(b), 2(a) and 3 proved and he referred to the evidence of BC and the transcription of the disciplinary hearing. He submitted that limited weight should be given to the evidence of Ms AI. In relation to the HCPC’s alternative case, Mr Slack submitted that the Panel should find 2(b) proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admission and that the conduct in particular 2(b) could only be dishonest.

36. Ms Williamson submitted that the Panel should find particulars 1(a), 1(b) and 2(a) not proved and she referred to the evidence of Ms AI and the Registrant. She pointed out that the entries contained no spelling mistakes and that the documentary evidence demonstrated that there was a time gap of only 60 seconds between the entries for Patient A and Patient B. In relation to particular 3, Ms Williamson referred to the Registrant’s evidence that her mind was not working properly and the Panel should conclude that her admitted conduct in particular 2(b) was not dishonest.

Decision

37. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had in mind that the burden of proof is on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Panel noted the evidence as to the Registrant’s good character, which may be relevant to the assessment of credibility, propensity, and to any inferences to be drawn as to the Registrant’s state of mind.

38. During the Panel’s deliberations the Legal Assessor gave additional legal advice to the Panel and the hearing was reconvened to enable that legal advice to be provided to the parties. The Panel had noted that the HCPC alternative case (particulars 2(d) and 3) did not include an allegation that the Registrant had given an inaccurate and potentially dishonest explanation of events to Ms Curtis. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel has a responsibility in accordance with the overarching objective to ensure that there is no under-prosecution of the case. The Panel has a pro-active role, as confirmed in case law including Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GMC and Ruscillo [2005] 1 WLR 717. If the Panel were to conclude that there had been under-prosecution by the HCPC, the Panel has options open to it, which might include raising the issue with the HCPC or proposing an amendment to the Allegation of its own motion.

39. Mr Slack had no comment on this legal advice, but added a reference to a case involving late amendment of the Allegation (PSA v HCPC and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319.

40. Ms Williamson made submissions on the Registrant’s position if the Panel were to conclude that there had been under-prosecution by the HCPC. She submitted that the Registrant would oppose any application for an amendment, that in the event of an amendment it would be necessary to recall the Registrant and her witness to give further evidence, and that it was likely that an adjournment would be required.

41. Having considered the position, with careful consideration of the Panel’s responsibilities and the public interest, the Panel decided that the Allegation was adequate, and that it was not necessary to take further steps. The HCPC has been aware of the Registrant’s account of events and has had the opportunity to consider that account and formulate the appropriate Allegation. The allegation of dishonesty is central to either of the alternatives within the case, and on either of the alternative bases, the Panel’s findings will address the question of the Registrant’s honesty and integrity.

Particular 1(a) and 1(b)

42. Having reviewed the evidence the Panel concluded that the HCPC has not discharged the burden of proof. The Panel found that, when considered in the round, the evidence was confused and contradictory. The contradictions were apparent within the contemporaneous accounts as well as between the contemporaneous accounts and the witness evidence. The HCPC relies upon the Registrant’s account given to BC in the disciplinary meeting on 3 August 2022. There are no doubts about the content of the meeting because it was recorded, but the panel noted significant internal inconsistencies within it and examples are as follows:

• The Registrant said that her sister had marked the two patients as “completed”;
• The Registrant said that she (rather than her sister) added the treatment notes;
• The Registrant said that she dictated the notes and her sister typed them in.

43. Although the Panel had reservations about the evidence of Ms AI, it did not discount her evidence. Ms AI’s stated level of educational attainment, and the assistance she had required in order to read her witness statement and send an email to the Registrant’s solicitor, and together with her inability to speak or write English, indicated that it was unlikely that she would have been able to access Practicepal or input notes for Service Users A and/or B.

44. The Panel gave weight to the contemporaneous documentary evidence. It showed that the notes for Service User B were added at 20.46 and the notes for Service User A were added at 20.47. The note for Service User B was “Improving now Vas = 1-3/10”. The Panel considered that it was not plausible that the Registrant could have dictated this note to her sister, who stated that she is unable to type, and this note be completed in less than 60 seconds.

45. The Panel considered that the account given by the Registrant in her oral evidence that she was responsible for accessing Practicepal, recording that the appointments of Service User A and Service User B were “complete”, and adding the treatment notes for those patients, to be more plausible than the account she gave to BC in parts of the disciplinary hearing. The Panel did not speculate on the reasons the Registrant gave an inaccurate account of the involvement of her “sister” to BC in the disciplinary hearing, and did not take the opportunity to clearly correct the position after that hearing. Having listened carefully to the recording of the disciplinary hearing, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant appeared to be unduly anxious, unwell, or under undue pressure, and the Panel was provided with no medical evidence of ADHD or any other health condition.

46. The Panel found particulars 1(a) and 1(b) not proved.

47. In reaching its conclusions on particulars 1(a) and 1(b) the Panel did not accept the Registrant’s evidence in its entirety. The Registrant has given varying and inconsistent accounts of the events, and the Panel did not find that her evidence was credible and reliable in all details.

Particular 2(a)

48. The Panel found particular 2(a) not proved for the same reasons it found particulars 1(a) and 1(b) not proved.

Particular 2(b)

49. The Panel found particular 2(b) proved by the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 3

50. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos and the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.

51. The Panel considered what the Registrant knew or believed as to the facts and circumstances when she entered the notes for Service Users A and B.

52. The Registrant knew that she had left work early due to the train strikes and that as a result she had taken steps earlier the same day to rearrange the appointments with Service Users A and B through an exchange of text messages. The Registrant told the Panel that she had entirely forgotten this when she entered the details for those service users. The Panel did not accept that the Registrant could have forgotten events which were so recent. The Registrant knew that she was either copying from previous service user notes, or fabricating service user notes, because she had not seen either patient.

53. There are no spelling or other errors within the limited service user notes.

54. The Panel did not accept that the Registrant genuinely believed on 27 July 2022 that it was acceptable to copy service user notes from previous appointments, regardless of any conversation she may have had with the previous CEO of the Company. The Registrant did not qualify as a physiotherapist in the UK, and as part of her application for registration she would have provided evidence to demonstrate that she met all the HCPC standards of proficiency. The requirement for accurate record keeping is a fundamental aspect of training and practice as a physiotherapist.

55. The Panel inferred from all the circumstances that the Registrant knew that she had fabricated records for service users A and B, when no appointments had taken place. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel noted the evidence of the Registrant’s good character, but decided that it was outweighed by other evidence as to the Registrant’s understanding of the circumstances.

56. The Panel next considered, given the Registrant’s knowledge and belief as to the circumstances, whether her conduct was dishonest by the standards of an “ordinary decent person”. In her evidence, the Registrant herself, looking back at her past conduct, described it as dishonest

57. The Panel found that an ordinary decent person would find the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest. The fabrication of medical records for a service user is dishonest behaviour.

Decision on misconduct

58. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack. He invited the Panel to find that the statutory ground of misconduct had been established. He submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in the facts found proved by the Panel fell far below the relevant standards in force at the time.

59. Ms Williamson made no submissions on misconduct, save to point out that three of the factual particulars were found not proved.

60. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Her advice included reference to the cases of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin).

61. The Panel was aware that in respect of misconduct there was no burden or standard of proof and that it was a matter for the Panel’s own professional judgment. It bore in mind that breaches of the Standards did not automatically result in a finding of impairment.

62. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct fell significantly below the standards to be expected of a registered Physiotherapist. In particular the Panel considered that the Registrant was in breach of the following standards:

HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics

6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

10.1 You must keep full, clear and accurate records for everyone you care for, treat or provide other services to.


63. The notes created by the Registrant gave the false impression that Service Users A and B had received treatment and described their presentation on 27 July 2022. This falsification of service user records, had the potential to harm Service Users A and/or B.

64. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was in breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. Dishonesty is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on public confidence in the profession. Such conduct is entirely contrary to the requirement for physiotherapists to behave ethically, acting with integrity, honesty, and openness.

65. The Panel considered that members of the profession and members of the public would consider the Registrant’s dishonest conduct to be deplorable.

66. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standards of a physiotherapist and was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

67. The Panel was invited by Mr Slack to consider whether, in its judgment, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, and to consider all the relevant factors. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant has not fully remediated her misconduct and that there is a risk of repetition. He also submitted that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct brought the profession into disrepute and all four limbs of the test for fitness to practise in the case of CHRE v Grant [2011] EWHC 927 were engaged.

68. In her submissions Ms Williamson reminded the Panel that the test is whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. She submitted that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct involved an isolated incident which took place two and a half years ago, and that there has been no replication of the conduct. Ms Williamson also referred to the Registrant’s reflection on dishonesty, as set out within her witness statement, and submitted that the Registrant has demonstrated considerable insight. Ms Williamson also referred the Panel to the testimonials which describe the Registrant as a “great” physiotherapist, knowledgeable, caring, honest, dedicated, patient centered, and with strong clinical skills. Ms Williamson submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was out of character and that there is no evidence either before or after 27 July 2022 of any dishonesty. In the circumstances, Ms Williamson invited the Panel to conclude that there will be no repetition of similar conduct.

69. The Panel recognised that its findings in relation to misconduct did not necessarily mean that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

70. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took account of the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment.

71. The Panel firstly considered the personal element of impairment. It considered whether the misconduct is remediable. Dishonesty involves an attitudinal issue, and it is therefore more difficult to address such conduct and persuade a Panel that there will be no repetition. The Panel was of the view that with careful thought, reflection and targeted action the misconduct in this case may be remediable. The dishonest conduct in this case did not involve a pattern of conduct, nor was it the most egregious form of dishonesty. It was relatively narrow in scope, and any personal gain for the Registrant would have been limited. It appears to have been a decision made when the Registrant was under stress relating to her health and believed that she was under time pressure to complete service user notes.

72. The Panel noted that there was no early admission of dishonesty, nor was there a clear account given to BC of the Registrant’s involvement. There was no insight demonstrated immediately after the misconduct.

73. The Registrant has taken some steps to address her past misconduct. She has provided evidence that she has completed training on records management, and legal and ethical frameworks. The Registrant also included in her statement her reflections on her conduct, acknowledging the impact of dishonesty on public confidence in the profession. The Registrant apologised and within her statement and her evidence to the Panel she described her behaviour as unethical, dishonest, and a “big mistake”. She acknowledged the risk of harm to the service users because the service records were created when she had not seen the patients and gave examples of the risks that might arise.


74. The Panel’s assessment was that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight within her statement and in her evidence to the Panel. However, the Panel considered that the Registrant had not fully engaged with some of the underlying reasons for her dishonest behaviour on 27 July 2022, or considered protective factors that she could put in place to ensure that such conduct will not be repeated. The Registrant might have reflected on the circumstances and emotions that she felt on 27 July 2022, and whether she was open and transparent with her employer about her health and her circumstances. She might have reflected on her professional responsibilities to ensure that she is well enough to complete all her responsibilities as a physiotherapist, ensuring that there is no risk to the public. She might have reflected on her response to stressful circumstances, tension with or pressure from her employer, and what steps she would take as a professional, to address such issues. She might also reflect on the requirements to comply with her professional obligations, notwithstanding any advice or suggestions she might receive to the contrary.

75. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had not fully reflected and acknowledged that there might in the future be circumstances in which there is a test of her honesty and integrity, particularly in circumstances where she is under stress. The Registrant might have considered what protective measures she would put in place to ensure that there will be no repetition of dishonest conduct.

76. In the Panel’s view the insight demonstrated by the Registrant was developing, but was insufficient.

77. In its assessment of the risk of repetition the Panel acknowledged that there is no evidence of any repetition of dishonest behaviour, and that there is testimonial evidence that the Registrant is a safe and effective practitioner. Nevertheless, the insight demonstrated by the Registrant was insufficient to satisfy the Panel that there will be no repetition of dishonest conduct. The Panel considered that in circumstances of stress or pressure, such as those which arose on 27 July 2022, there was a risk of repetition.

78. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the personal component.

79. The Panel next considered whether, given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the Registrant’s misconduct, public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and the HCPC would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour if there was no finding of impairment in this case.

80. The gravity of the Registrant’s conduct is that it is dishonest conduct, and directly relating to the care of service users. The falsification of patient records is very serious, and a finding of impairment is required to mark the Registrant’s departure from professional standards.

81. The Panel also considered the impact of the Registrant’s behaviour on public confidence in the profession. Dishonesty is unethical behaviour and it undermines public confidence in the profession, particularly where it has a potential impact on public safety. The dishonest behaviour in this case involved falsification of patient records, creating an impression that the Registrant had treated service users A and B when this was not the case. The Panel had no hesitation in concluding that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

82. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

Order

No information currently available

Notes

This hearing adjourned, part heard. The date for the reconvened hearing is to be confirmed.

 

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Aleena Tahir

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
08/01/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Hearing has not yet been held
;