Imran Khan

Preliminary Matters at review hearing on 13 September 2024

Application for part of the hearing to take place in private

1. Mr Rokad applied for part of the hearing to be heard in private, in accordance with Rule 10 of the Health Professions Council Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), on the basis that the Registrant intended to raise matters which related to his health.

2. The Registrant supported the application.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The Panel decided to allow the application to hear such parts of the hearing as related to the Registrant’s health in private, as it forms part of his private life.

Background

4. The Registrant was employed as a Podiatrist by Walsall Health Care NHS Trust (the Trust) between 12 August 2019 and October 2020.

5. Concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct arose after he suffered an epileptic seizure in September 2019 following which he was prohibited from driving for six months. In contravention of this he was seen on multiple occasions by his colleagues driving to and from work. He was spoken to about this on multiple occasions by his Team Leader, CH, and his manager, MK, the Clinical Lead Podiatrist.

6. Concerns were also identified relating to the Registrant’s inadequate record-keeping in respect of fourteen patients.

7. Following a period of sick leave in March 2020, the Registrant was taken off clinical duties due to the concerns raised regarding his patient care and he was to work as a Clinical Support Worker (CSW) to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the course of a two-day health and safety training day at the hospital, designed to prepare him for this role, the Registrant was witnessed introducing himself as a doctor. Thereafter he was redeployed to administrative duties.

Decision on facts at the substantive hearing

8. In summary, the substantive panel’s findings of fact were as follows:

Particular 1

Between September and November 2019 you were seen driving to and from work, on multiple occasions, despite having informed your employer that you were not driving and/or suspended from driving.

9. Witness CH stated that during the Registrant’s induction, the Registrant had informed her that he had not been feeling well. He subsequently took time off work.

10. CH stated that she met with the Registrant on 21 October 2019. She had

been told by colleagues that he had been seen driving to and from work. She stated that the Registrant assured her that his wife was picking him up and dropping him off at work.

11. After the meeting was concluded, CH saw the Registrant leave the building, get into his car and drive off.

12. MK stated she spoke to the Registrant and sent him home, following which he was off work for a period of time.

13. MK stated that TH, an Occupational Health Advisor who saw the Registrant on 11 October 2019, told her that the Registrant had informed her that he was unable to drive for six months.

14. MK stated that she spoke to the Registrant about this and he stated that he had informed the DVLA that [REDACTED] She said that the Registrant informed her that he was not driving to and from work, but rather his wife was dropping him off and picking him up. When asked why his car was then left on the premises all day, he informed MK that his wife would sometimes leave the car in the car park whilst she went shopping. However, following this conversation, MK stated that she continued to receive reports that the Registrant had been seen driving.

15. AM gave evidence that on 30 October 2019, she saw the Registrant driving off from the Trust premises.

16. In admitting the factual particular, the Registrant stated that he only drove his car on three or four occasions. This happened when his wife assured him that she would drive him to work but then let him down at the last minute. He stated that he did not take public transport because of the time and cost involved, and that his motivation was to ensure that he could get to work on time to complete his clinical list without disruption to colleagues or patients.

Particular 2

Between 09 September 019 and 24 February 2020 you did not make any and/or adequate notes for Patient A - N

17. The Registrant was found by the substantive panel to have failed to keep adequate patient records in respect of the patient identified in the allegation. Witness CH stated that she randomly selected some of the Registrant’s files for one week and, having conducted a visual audit, concluded that the Registrant was not filling out the written notes. CH exhibited the relevant patient notes and identified the specific concerns in relation to each patient.

18. The Registrant admitted this Particular, saying that he recognised that his record-keeping was inadequate but that he had difficulty adjusting to the practice at the Trust of keeping handwritten notes when the practice at his former post in Oxford was to maintain records electronically. He said he had also had difficulty with time constraints. He stated that he had made some separate handwritten notes but these were not kept with the patients’ records. He said he understood the importance of accurate record- keeping and that he had since undertaken a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course in record-keeping to “better myself”.

Particular 5

On or around 5 May 2020 you told colleagues that you were a doctor when this was not the case.

19. AM stated that, following concerns being raised about the Registrant, a decision was taken for the Registrant to be taken away from a clinical role pending the outcome of an internal investigation. A decision was taken that the Registrant should work as a CSW. It was agreed that the Registrant would take part in the week of CSW training.

20. MP stated that on 5 May 2020, colleagues from the Learning and Development team, SM and JE, informed her that the Registrant had attended the training session but he had informed the group that he was a doctor who specialised in foot and ankle surgery.

21. MP stated that she spoke to the Registrant with SM. She stated that she asked the Registrant to tell her which department he worked in within the Trust. He informed her that he worked in Podiatric Medicine and his line manager was MK. MP knew MK to be on secondment at the time. The Registrant went on to say that he had been asked to go on the wards as there were no elective surgeries occurring at the moment, so he was to be redeployed. MP stated that she asked the Registrant what he meant by elective surgeries, and he responded by saying foot and ankle surgeries. MP asked him to confirm his role at the Trust prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and he informed her it was carrying out foot and ankle surgeries. She did not ask any further questions about his current role as she recalled being shocked by what he was saying. He then named a particular member of staff at the Trust with whom he worked in surgery. MP was aware that this member of staff did not conduct foot and ankle surgery, so she challenged the Registrant on this information, who nevertheless maintained his stance.

22. MP then asked the Registrant to confirm whether he was a podiatrist or a doctor, to which he responded that he was both, that he had completed his medical degree and his podiatry degree, and that he was registered with the HCPC and GMC.

23. SM also stated that the Registrant told her that he was a doctor.

24. In a written statement, JE stated that:

“I met [the Registrant] in reception and asked what his job was and he told me he was a Paediatric Surgeon who due to elective surgery being cancelled and that he had returned from being off sick, he was due a refresher as requested by HR. I called [ML] as I believed he was due for a doctor’s induction but [ML] didn’t know who he was. A few minutes later [EB] from Recruitment came down and addressed him as the Podiatrist she knew about … I was bit confused as he told me he was a Doctor and not a Podiatrist … I accompanied both [MP] and [the Registrant] into Room 2 within the MLCC. At this point [MP] asked [the Registrant] if he held dual registrations with GMC and Allied Health Profession Register (unable to remember the anacronym). [The Registrant] confirmed that he held both registrations and that he had studied Paediatric Medicine and Podiatry and that he currently did surgery on foot and ankle.”

25. In a written statement, TH stated that:

“I performed Fit Masking Testing on this person on Tuesday May 2020.

As part of the test procedure, I asked [the Registrant] to talk to me for one minute, and he chose to talk about his work.

He said that he worked in Podiatric Medicine, and that he had been brushing up on his Respiratory Medicine in case he was redeployed on ICU with ventilated patients. I am certain that he said that it had been a while since he had covered this in medical school.
I cannot recall any more of his conversation, but the impression he gave was that he was a doctor rather than a Podiatrist.”

26. AM stated that she was informed by MP that the Registrant was referring to himself as a doctor. AM subsequently met with the Registrant, who denied that he had referred to himself as a doctor.

27. The Registrant denied Particular 5; he denied that he had said he was a doctor. The substantive panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant said he was a doctor, necessitating questions to be asked about possible GMC registration. The Panel did not consider it credible that questions would have been asked about his GMC registration in the absence of the Registrant stating that he was a doctor.

Particular 6

Your conduct in relation to particulars 1 and 5 was dishonest.

28. The substantive panel found that the Registrant’s actions as found proved Particulars 1 and 5 were dishonest.

Decision on misconduct and lack of competence

29. The Registrant provided the substantive panel with a written reflective statement.

30. In relation to Particular 1 the Registrant stated:

“I realise on reflection that there were other options such as public transport which I should have taken regardless of the cost that it incurred to me. I also feel that the stress I had at the time from the [REDACTED] took an extreme toll on me I do not feel I was in the correct mental space and I made poor choices. In this regards this is not an excuse I just want the panel to know I am extremely regretful and remorseful about this entire situation which could have been avoided entirely.

I understand just because I am fortunate to have an aura this does not give me the liberty to drive as I was not only putting my life at risk but the lives of other road users, I am so very sorry about this and I am grateful to God that nothing ever happened.
I am also deeply ashamed about not telling those whom asked me about the driving situation when asked at the time, I realise now on reflection that honesty with colleagues is the core foundation of team work as there needs to be a level of trust and integrity between colleagues so we are able to support one another and work effectively in a team. I believe it was my internal faulty thinking which led me to conceal this from them at the time, I felt attacked at the time and I just hid, for this I’m sorry.

Reflecting on this I would do everything differently I would make choices that do not risk me or others I would have sought help from work and colleagues and spoken up about my issues I was facing at the time, in so that I could have been offered the support that I needed.”

31. In relation to Particular 2, the Registrant stated:

“Record-keeping is of paramount importance, not only are the notes and records you make legal documents, they are necessary in knowing what exactly occurred or happened in any given contact between a practitioner and patient.

The impact of poor record-keeping affects patients, and their safety is put at risk if the records are not thoroughly taken and kept, this leads to problems and potentially catastrophic consequences, especially when it comes to consequential errors from the poor record-keeping in the first instance. The local intervention helped significantly I.e. the use of templates for structuring notes that are complete and coherent [REDACTED], after this my record-keeping improved as I was helped and made aware of my shortcomings and how I could rectify them, I only wish that I had asked for this help and intervention sooner as to avoid this problem in the first place. Also if I had to do handwritten notes again, I would utilise the structural templates I have to my disposal and also ask colleagues and others to review and audit notes to ensure they are lucid, coherent and accurate.
I have since completed CPD courses from the college of Podiatry specifically in relation to record-keeping.”

32. In relation to Particular 5, the Registrant stated:

“In the future I will make sure that I only use the names podiatry or chiropody as to make sure that no one is confused, as Podiatric Medicine can lead to confusion.
I understand that it is problematic to claim you're a doctor when you’re not. On reflection the impact this would have on patients and colleagues would be serious as they would not fully understand your job role or your remit and this could lead to a number of problems and issues for both patients and colleagues, for example if a patient thought their podiatrist was a doctor they may think that the podiatrist should and could prescribe medication for them and if denied by the podiatrist this could escalate into an extremely dangerous situation for both patient and practitioner, similarly with colleagues they may think you are able to for example request imaging or take IV bloods this would all end badly for all parties concerned.
I also understand the impact on my profession, this would have; as members of the public would lose faith in podiatry and put the profession into disrepute as they may generalise all podiatrists in this way, this is not something I wish to do, therefore I have made sure this will not happen again, by only referring to the profession as podiatry or chiropody as to avoid confusion in the future.”

33. The substantive panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in respect of Particulars 1, 5 and 6 amounted to misconduct. The Panel found that Particular 2 constituted a lack of competence.

34. In its written determination the substantive panel stated:

“Given the Panel’s findings in relation to the facts found proved, it concluded that the Registrant breached standards 1, 6, 9, and 10 of the HCPC “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics”, and, in relation to Particular 2, standards 1 and 10 of the HCPC “Standards of Proficiency for Chiropodists/Podiatrists”.

However, the Panel was mindful that a finding of misconduct / lack of competence did not necessarily follow as a result.
The Panel carefully considered the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings. In doing so, it identified that:

⦁ the Registrant repeatedly knowingly made false statements, as found proved in relation to Particular 6, in relation to his driving and in relation to stating that he was a doctor. Honesty is a fundamental core quality of what it means to be a professional and the public should rightly be entitled to assume that registered HCPC professionals are honest and trustworthy;

⦁ by driving when he should not have done so, the Registrant put himself and others at risk of serious harm;

⦁ in relation to the Registrant’s record-keeping, CH took a random sample of 14 files and identified that 75% had missing notes. The Panel concluded that this did represent a fair sample of the Registrant’s work;

⦁ the Registrant appreciated the importance of accurate record- keeping to ensure effective patient care;

35. The substantive panel concluded that the matters found proved in relation to Particulars 1, 5, and 6 were sufficiently serious departures from the standards expected of a Chiropodist / Podiatrist as to amount to misconduct.

36. In relation to Particular 2, the substantive panel concluded that the inadequate notes did represent a fair sample of the Registrant’s work and amounted to a lack of competence.

Decision on Impairment

37. In its determination in relation to current impairment, the substantive panel stated:

“In relation to the Registrant’s record-keeping, in assessing future risk the Panel noted that whilst the Registrant had reflected on the importance of accurate record-keeping and had attended a relevant course in February 2022, he had not meaningfully demonstrated what he had learned from that course. In addition, because the Registrant has not been working in a clinical post in the interim since he left the Trust, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated there were no longer any ongoing concerns and that he now fully complied with his professional obligations within a clinical setting. As such, the Panel concluded that it was not satisfied that the Registrant had, in practice, remediated his failing in this regard. In the circumstances, it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of repetition of his lack of competence.

As such, in relation to the Registrant’s lack of competence, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

In relation to dishonesty, the Panel recognised that dishonesty is difficult to remediate. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s reflective statement and was satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight into his dishonesty. Whilst recognising that he would not now lie about driving or state that he was a doctor, the Panel concluded that his insight was limited because it was not satisfied that he had meaningfully reflected and demonstrated insight into the impact of dishonesty on the reputation of the profession generally. The Panel also took into account that the matters found proved reflected repeated acts of dishonesty over a six-month period in relation to separate and distinct events. Given the Panel’s finding that the Registrant’s insight was limited, it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of dishonest behaviour, albeit that it may not be in relation to the exact same circumstances as arose in this case.

As such, in relation to the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on the personal component.

The Panel also took into account the overarching objectives of the HCPC to protect, promote, and maintain the health, safety, and wellbeing of the public and patients, and to uphold and protect the wider public interest, which includes promoting and maintaining public confidence in the Chiropodist / Podiatrist profession and upholding proper professional standards for members of the profession. The Panel therefore considered that, given the serious nature of the dishonesty found proved and the Registrant’s lack of competence that had yet to be fully remediated, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in all the circumstances.

Having regard to all of the above the Panel found that, by reason of his misconduct and lack of competence, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component of impairment.”

Decision on Sanction

38. In considering sanction, the substantive panel stated that it had identified the following aggravating factors:

⦁ That the Registrant behaved dishonestly in relation to two separate issues over a six-month period;

⦁ That the Registrant drove on at least three or four occasions when he should not have done so, thereby repeatedly putting himself and others at risk.

39. The substantive panel identified the following mitigating factors:

⦁ The Registrant engaged in the regulatory process and made early admissions to a number of particulars, including one allegation of dishonesty, at the outset of the hearing;
⦁ The Registrant had difficult health and personal circumstances at the time which impacted on his performance.
⦁ The Registrant provided a positive testimonial attesting to his character and professionalism. However, the Panel attached less weight to that reference than might otherwise have been the case, given that the author had not worked with the Registrant since 2017 and had only done so for approximately five months. The Panel also noted that the referee made no comment on the current allegations or that he was aware of them.

40. The substantive panel stated:

“In identifying mitigating factors, the Panel considered that it was incumbent on the Registrant to familiarise himself with the Trust’s procedures, particularly handwriting patient notes, and therefore attached little weight to Mr James’ submission in this regard.

Similarly, whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant has undertaken a record-keeping course, the Panel considered that the Registrant has not meaningfully demonstrated what he took from the course nor demonstrated how he has effectively put his learning into practice.

Considering all of the circumstances in the round, the Panel considered the Registrant’s dishonesty to be towards the centre of the spectrum of dishonesty.”

41. The substantive panel considered the available sanctions taking account of proportionality and decided that the appropriate sanction was a period of 4 months’ suspension.

42. In its written determination the substantive panel explained that it considered that this was the appropriate sanction to impose because:
⦁ The matters found proved, as set out in the determination on misconduct, represented serious breaches of the HCPC “Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics”;
⦁ The Registrant demonstrated some insight into his failings, particularly in relation to Particular 1;
⦁ The Registrant had developed some insight into his dishonest behaviour even though that process was not as yet complete.

43. The substantive panel stated that a future reviewing panel would be assisted by:

a. Further evidence of remediation in relation to record-keeping;

b. Evidence of reflection by the Registrant on his conduct, demonstrating meaningful insight into the impact of his dishonest behaviour on the wider profession and the public;

c. Up-to-date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;

d. Evidence that the Registrant has kept his skills and knowledge up to date;

e. Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.

Review hearing 22 August 2023

44. The Registrant did not attend the first substantive review hearing, held on 22 August 2023. The first substantive review panel concluded that it had no new or up to date information from the Registrant, for example about his current circumstances or any action he may have taken towards remedying his misconduct and lack of competence, or further developing his insight.

The first review panel agreed with the findings of the substantive panel and concluded that there remained a risk to service users and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public component of impairment.

45. In relation to sanction, the first review panel stated:

“The Panel was satisfied that, given the Registrant’s lack of engagement in this review process, that to take no action, to mediate or to issue a caution to the Registrant would not provide the necessary public

protection or address the public interest. The Panel concluded that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate in circumstances where there has been no contact from the Registrant and where there is no evidence before this Panel that the Registrant’s misconduct and lack of competence have been addressed. Further, given the lack of engagement from the Registrant, the Panel could not have confidence that the Registrant would engage or comply with conditions of practice.

The Panel considered carefully whether a further period of suspension would be appropriate. This would allow the Registrant a further period of time in which to address the issues relating to his misconduct and professional competence and to re-engage with the HCPC process.

Before confirming that conclusion, the Panel proceeded to consider whether a striking off order was now appropriate in relation to the misconduct matters. The Panel concurred with the view of the original hearing Panel, that a Striking Off Order was appropriate for the most serious cases of dishonesty. The Registrant's proven failings were not at the level of seriousness to mean that they were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that a Suspension Order may be appropriate where “there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”. The Panel noted from the original Panel’s determination on impairment that it considered that the Registrant had developed some insight into his dishonest behaviour even though that process was not complete.

The Panel determined that the appropriate order is that a further period of suspension be imposed from the date when the current order expires. The Panel concluded that 12 months is the appropriate period to allow time for the Registrant to address the issues of concern and provide evidence for a future review. The Panel was mindful that it is possible for the Registrant to request an early review under Article 30 of the

Health Professions Order should his circumstances change.

This Panel considered the information which is likely to assist a future review Panel remains the same as recommended by the original Panel, but wishes to emphasise to the Registrant that the information or evidence that he provides may relate to paid, unpaid or voluntary work.

The information which may assist a future review Panel is as follows:

a. Further evidence of remediation in relation to record-keeping;

b. Evidence of reflection by the Registrant on his conduct, demonstrating meaningful insight into the impact of his dishonest behaviour on the wider profession and the public;

c. Up-to-date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;

d. Evidence that the Registrant has kept his skills and knowledge up to date;

e. Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.”

Second review hearing of 13 September 2024

46. At the first review hearing the panel had been provided with material relating to two other sets of concerns that were as yet unproven. However, at the second review hearing the Case Presenter clarified that these should not be taken into account when reviewing the allegations found proved, and the Legal Assessor concurred with this, advising that the panel should put these other unproven matters out of their minds entirely. The panel confirmed that as a professional panel it was able to put these other matters out of its mind when reaching its decision. It proceeded on the basis of the material relating to the substantive allegations that had been proved alone.

47. The Case Presenter provided a Skeleton Argument in which he put forward his submissions on behalf of the HCPC as follows:

“The Registrant submitted 5 documents to be considered:

I. Letter from the GP to the HCPC (dated 13 January 2021) (2);
II. Letter from Dr Zan Abbas (dated 12 June 2024) (3);
III. Certificate of CPD (dated 29 August 2024) (4-5);
IV. Record Keeping and Consent CPD (dated 29 October 2021) (6);
V. Registrant’s Reflection Statement (undated) (7-8).

The HCPC submits that documents (i) and (iv) are not relevant to this SOR given their age. Document (i) concerns the Registrant’s personal and family life at the time of the allegations, but no updates regarding his medical and family life have been provided to the HCPC in advance of this hearing.

Document (iii) is addressed later in the HCPC’s submissions. However, the HCPC would point out that no explanation is provided by the Registrant to explain what he learnt from the course or how he has effectively put his learning into practice. The HCPC notes that a failure to satisfactorily demonstrate what the Registrant took from a CPD course was noted as a concern following a previous CPD certificate at the final hearing Document (ii) is a glowing, but general testimonial. The letter from Dr Abbas is not relevant to the evidence invited by the reviewing Panel, i.e. “any work undertaken by the Registrant, either paid or unpaid”.

Document (v), the Registrant’s reflective statement, is firstly undated. It is therefore not clear when it was drafted. No dates are referenced in the document and it is possible that such a statement has been submitted to a prior Panel.

Regarding his driving [REDACTED], the Registrant accepts that his actions “puts the lives of others at risk” and is “grateful that nothing

tragic occurred”. He is apologetic for this and “ashamed” about his dishonesty when asking about his driving. He seeks to explain this as his “internal faulty thinking led me to hide the truth”.

Regarding the record keeping, the Registrant appears to accept the need for accurate and timely records to be kept and maintained to uphold “continuity of care”. He accepts that his “lapses in this area were inexcusable”. He has mentioned that since the final hearing, he has “completed numerous CPD courses on the subject”. The HCPC notes that no specific examples of a CPD course are mentioned in this statement.

Regarding the claim to present himself as a doctor, the Registrant states that he is “aware of the confusion that may arise from the use of terms like “Podiatric Medicine””. He stated that he never claimed to be a doctor, but states that he recognises the “responsibility I have in ensuring that my role is communicated clearly”. He states that he does not want to “mislead anyone” and is “committed to upholding the trust and integrity the public has in podiatry”.

This SOR Panel may view the Registrant’s reflective statement as demonstrating some reflection on his conduct, i.e. part (b). The Panel may feel the one CPD certificate speaks to part (d) above. However, the HCPC submits that no evidence in the Registrant’s bundle addresses the three remaining parts of evidence that the Registrant has been invited to provide, i.e. (a), (c) and (e).

The HCPC submits that the Suspension Order should be extended for a period of 6 months. The HCPC submits that this period would allow the Registrant a third opportunity to address the CCC Panel’s and reviewing Panel’s concerns…

In light of the gravity of the allegations, lack of insight and remorse, the HCPC submits that a second extension of the Suspension Order is proportionate. The HCPC notes that there has been no substantive change in the year since the last Substantive Review that would warrant any less restrictive sanction (or a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired). It is submitted that a further extension of the Suspension Order could result in an improvement to the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

The HCPC submits that an extension to the Suspension Order would be both necessary for the protection of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest….

The Registrant has provided one CPD certificate in his bundle (4-5) that is dated after the first SOR. His reflective statement mentions that since the substantive review, he has “since completed numerous CPD courses” . However, save for one document described, there no further CPD documents have been provided. The Registrant has therefore not provided any of the further evidence invited of him on two occasions to address the factors listed above. Additionally, the HCPC notes that the Registrant has stated that he is not practicing: “The four years without practicing podiatry…”….

The HCPC invites the Panel to note that the Registrant has not provided any of the evidence requested of him by the CCC Panel. The Registrant has not discharged his persuasive burden. In doing so, the Registrant has also shown that he does not demonstrate the level of insight or remorse to improve his fitness to practise. The Registrant has not provided any other evidence of insight.

The HCPC submits that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both personal and public components. He remains a risk to service users and his proven misconduct would affect public confidence in the profession and regulatory process.

The HCPC notes that two of the allegations (1 and 5) considered at a final hearing centred on dishonesty. Both allegations of dishonesty were found proven at the final hearing and held to constitute dishonesty (allegation 6)….

Accordingly, the HCPC invites the Panel to extend the Suspension Order for a period of 6 months to take effect at the end of the current Suspension Order”.

48. The Registrant provided the following documentation for the Panel to consider:
⦁ Letter from the GP to the HCPC (dated 13 January 2021)
⦁ Letter from Dr Zan Abbas (dated 12 June 2024)

⦁ Certificate of CPD (dated 29 August 2024)
⦁ Record Keeping and Consent CPD (dated 29 October 2021)
⦁ Registrant’s Reflection Statement (undated)

49. In his reflective statement the Registrant stated as follows:

“I am deeply remorseful and regretful for my actions and the situation that I find myself in today. The four years without practicing podiatry have been extremely mentally challenging, the whole HCPC process has taken a lot out of me. Looking back my decision to drive, despite my health condition, was a mistake that I made in a time of immense personal stress. It was not a malicious act, nor did I intend to cause harm to anyone. However, I now fully understand the gravity of my decision and the potential risks I posed to myself and others. I made that choice out of a sense of duty to fulfill my obligations at work, but in hindsight, I can see that there were other safer options, such as using public transport, even if it was inconvenient. I allowed the [REDACTED], to cloud my judgment. This is not an excuse, and I take full responsibility for my poor decisions. If the situation was to occur again, I would now seek the appropriate help.

I understand that just because [REDACTED], this does not give me the liberty to drive. My actions put the lives of others at risk, and for that, I am truly and deeply sorry. I am incredibly grateful that nothing tragic occurred, but I know that my decisions could have led to serious consequences. I am also ashamed of not being honest when asked about my driving situation. My internal faulty thinking led me to hide the truth, and I realize now how wrong that was. I should have been transparent and sought help, rather than concealing the reality. For this, I am profoundly sorry.

Reflecting on the situation, I know that if I had the chance, I would do everything differently. I would make decisions that prioritize safety and honesty, and I would have sought the support I needed from work or elsewhere. Going forward, I am committed to being more open about my health and personal struggles, seeking help when needed, and ensuring that I never put myself or others in harm’s way again.

I am also remorseful for my past failures in record keeping. As a healthcare professional, I understand that accurate record keeping is of paramount importance, as it safeguards patients and ensures continuity of care. My lapses in this area were inexcusable, and I regret that I did not ask for help sooner to address this issue. Thankfully, after local intervention, I was able to significantly improve my record keeping, and I have since completed numerous CPD courses on the subject. I am ashamed that I let things slip to this point, and I now make it a priority to maintain thorough, clear, and accurate records to ensure patient safety.

In terms of my professional identity, I am aware of the confusion that may arise from the use of terms like "Podiatric Medicine." I want to state clearly that I have never claimed to be a doctor, but I understand that the use of such terms could mislead both patients and colleagues. This confusion could have serious consequences, and I now recognize the responsibility I have in ensuring that my role is communicated clearly. I will only use the terms podiatry or chiropody going forward, as I do not want to mislead anyone or bring my profession into disrepute. I am committed to upholding the trust and integrity that the public has in podiatry.

Through this process, I have had the opportunity to reflect on the HCPC's Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics. I am committed to improving my communication so that there is never any confusion between me, my colleagues, or my patients. I will also ensure that any changes to my physical or mental health are communicated to those who need to know, and I will not hesitate to make adjustments to my practice or stop practicing altogether if my health compromises patient safety or my ability. Above all, I will be honest and trustworthy in my practice, always maintaining the highest level of candor and integrity.

I am deeply ashamed and sorry for the actions that led to these situations. I have learned from this experience and hope that the panel will give me the chance to redeem myself. Podiatry is a profession I love, and I am passionate about, and I am committed to making things right so that I can continue to serve in this field responsibly and ethically to the best of my ability”.

50. In response to Panel questions the Registrant said that he had used social media videos and YouTube videos to further his professional development, and that he had recorded his reflections in the form of video diaries, although he accepted that he had not provided these to his regulator. The Registrant also stated that he had discussions with fellow graduates but had no details of those discussions to provide to the Panel. He said that he accepted the findings of the substantive panel.

Panel decision

51. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor on both the issue of Impairment and Sanction.

52. In considering current impairment, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had shown some remorse and remediation. He had stated that he accepted the findings of the substantive panel. He had provided a reflective statement and had evidenced one area of CPD completed by him.

53. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s reflective statement provided sufficient remediation for Particulars 1, 5 and 6. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had reflected sufficiently on the impact of his actions relating to dishonesty and was satisfied that the risk of repetition of this behaviour was now low.

54. However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had provided sufficient evidence of remediation for Particular 2. The Registrant informed the Panel orally that he had conducted further remediation and reflection in the form of online research and video recordings, but he had not evidenced this for his regulator or the Panel.

55. In those circumstances the Panel concluded that there remains a likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s past behaviour in Particular 2 if he were to be allowed to practise unrestricted, and that the risk of harm to the public if permitted to practice unrestricted remains.

56. The Panel concluded that the Registrant remains impaired on the personal component by reason of his lack of competence in Particular 2.

57. The Panel also concluded that public confidence in the profession and the declaring of proper standards of conduct and performance demanded a finding of impairment in relation to Particular 2 given the seriousness of the matters found proved.

58. In considering the issue of sanction, the Panel considered whether to make no order or to impose a Caution Order but concluded that this would not be sufficient to protect the public or satisfy the public interest in light of the seriousness of the lack of competence in Particular 2.

59. The Panel considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order but concluded these would be insufficient in light of the seriousness of the lack of competence. Furthermore the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant would abide by any conditions that the Panel may see fit to impose in light of the difficulty that he appeared to have encountered hitherto in providing the evidence of remediation suggested by previous panels.

60. The Panel therefore concluded that a Suspension Order was the only appropriate sanction in the circumstances. The Registrant had not evidenced sufficient remediation to satisfy the Panel that his lack of competence has been addressed. It was the judgement of the panel that a period of suspension was required to protect the public and the wider public interest in the circumstances of the case.

61. The Panel considered a Striking Off Order but concluded that this would be disproportionate in light of the remediation demonstrated in the Registrant’s reflective statement and submissions.

62. The Panel decided that the proportionate period of Suspension was 4 months to enable the Registrant to evidence his remediation and further develop his insight.

63. The Panel considered that the following information is likely to assist a future review panel. The information or evidence that he provides may relate to paid, unpaid or voluntary work.

⦁ Further evidence of remediation in relation to record-keeping in the form of a portfolio demonstrating reflection and learning
⦁ Up-to-date references / testimonials in relation to any work undertaken by the Registrant, whether paid or unpaid;
⦁ Evidence that the Registrant has kept his skills and knowledge up to date;
⦁ Any other evidence the Registrant considers would assist him to demonstrate that he is suitable to return to unrestricted practice.”

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to extend the Order of Suspension for a further four months.

The Order imposed today will apply from 23 September 2024.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 24 January 2025.

History of Hearings for Imran Khan