Mohammad M Rahman
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
As a registered Physiotherapist (PH105985) your fitness to practise is
impaired by reason of lack of competence, in that:
1) You did not display an adequate level of clinical theoretical knowledge,
in that:
a) On or around 22 November 2016, when you were treating Patient 78, you:
i) Did not display an adequate level of understanding of the role of a locked knee brace;
ii) Did not display the ability to develop exercise progression.
b) On or around 26 January 2017, when assessing Patient 80, who was experiencing coincidental low back pain, you:
i)[No case to answer];
ii) [No case to answer];
iii) [Not proved];
iv) [Not proved].
2) You did not display an adequate level of clinical understanding, in that:
a) On or around 27 October 2016, when assessing Patient 21, who was mobilising independently on stairs, you advised that they should move their bed downstairs, when this was not required;
b) [Not proved].
3) You were unable to demonstrate adequate clinical reasoning in that:
a) On or around 11 October 2016, when assessing Patient 14 who had a Long Head of Biceps repair, you were unable to establish a
treatment and/or action plan
b) On or around 20 October 2016, following an assessment of Patient 31:
i) You were unable to explain to nursing staff how to safely transfer the patient;
ii) You were unable to discuss an action plan and/or work to be undertaken with the patient in future treatment sessions;
4) You were unable to develop appropriate discharge goals and/or plans, in that you:
a) On or around 17 November 2016, in relation to Patient 67, you were:
i) Unaware of the discharge plans and/or that this service user was a priority;
ii) Unaware of arrangements under Section 5 of the Mental Health Act.
b) On or around 21 October 2016, when assessing Patient 4:
i) Did not demonstrate an understanding of discharge planning;
ii) Stated that you did not need to see Patient 4 as they were already discharged, when they had an estimated discharge date of 25 October 2016.
c) On or around 17 November 2016, in relation to Patient 63, you stated during a handover meeting that they were ready for discharge, when this was not the case.
5) You were unable to apply appropriate and/or safe treatment, and/or management, in that:
a) On or around 11 October 2016, when treating Patient 12, who had had Total Hip Replacement, you:
i) Treated them as if they had had a Total Knee Replacement;
ii) Were unaware of and/or did not undertake relevant standing exercises.
b) On or around 16 November 2016, when assisting Patient 1 in going to the toilet, you:
i) [Not proved];
ii) Left Patient 1 to stand on his own when you left to retrieve a wheelchair.
c) [Not proved];
d) [No case to answer];
e) On or around 18 October 2016, when assisting Patient 29 with stair descending exercises, you did not notice that:
i) One of Patient 29’s arms had not been inserted through the cuff of the crutch;
ii) One or both of the crutches were facing the wrong way.
6) You were unable to adequately evaluate clinical intervention, in that you:
a) [Not proved];
b) On or around 15 November 2016, when assessing Patient 57, you were not able to adapt Patient 57’s mobility goals or treatment to account for their previous mobility;
c) On or around 11 November 2016 you discharged Patients 53 and/or 54 following knee replacement surgery without discussion with a senior colleague and/or consultant despite their inadequate range of movement.
7) You did not display adequate levels of written and/or verbal communication, in that you:
a) Did not document consent in writing for the following patients, on the following dates:
i. [No case to answer];
ii. [No case to answer];
b) [Not proved];
8) [No case to answer].
9) The matters set out in paragraphs 1 – 8 constitute lack of competence.
10)By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Background as taken from the determination of the First Review Panel
8. The Registrant is a Physiotherapist who was employed at the relevant time as a Band 5 Physiotherapist by Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Trust (the Trust) between 21 September
2016 and 12 March 2017.
9. The role was a rotational post which required the Registrant to rotate between different specialities, usually on a four-monthly basis. During the first rotation on Orthopaedics, he was line-managed by AR, the Team Lead for Orthopaedics. His Clinical Supervisor was HI, who at the time was a Band 6 Physiotherapist working within the Orthopaedics ward. He was also assisted by SW and AW, who were both Band 4 Physiotherapist Technical Instructors.
10. During the Registrant’s first rotation on the Orthopaedics ward, various issues were identified by his colleagues and senior members of the Physiotherapy Team in respect of the Registrant’s ability to undertake physiotherapy work with patients. As a result, the Registrant required regular supervision whilst attending to patients and began to work through the Trust’s Performance Management Process to manage his competency.
11. The Registrant did not complete a full four-month rotation owing to rotational timings within the Trust. On or around 2 December 2016, after approximately nine weeks in Orthopaedics, the Registrant rotated to the Acute Stroke Unit. He was supervised by KG, Operational Manager and Team Lead for the Acute Stroke Unit, and Colleague 1, who was a Band 6 Physiotherapist. Further issues were identified during the course of that second rotation.
12. The Registrant decided to resign from his role prior to Stage 2 of the Performance Management Process commencing. The Registrant was referred to the HCPC by the Trust due to the concerns regarding his competency throughout his employment at the Trust.
13. Following the HCPC’s investigation the alleged deficiencies, as reflected in the Allegation made, were identified.
14. The Registrant provided a detailed statement in which he admitted some of the underlying facts in the matters alleged but disputed the majority of the allegations and that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of lack of competence.
15. In August 2021 the Panel heard an application of no case to answer on behalf of the Registrant. Having considered the application, the Panel dismissed particulars 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii), 4(a)(ii), 5(d), 7(a)(i), 7(a)(ii) and 8.
16. On 29 June 2023, following the substantive hearing which took place between 13 -14 March 2023 and on 29 June 2023, the Original Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and the public components.
17. The Original Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months. The Conditions of Practice Order was in the following terms.
1. You must place yourself, and remain under, the supervision of a workplace supervisor who:
a. is registered with the HCPC or another appropriate regulator; and
b. is experienced supervising students and or junior Physiotherapists; and
c. has not been subject to any regulatory concerns or complaints within the preceding three years;
2. You must complete a minimum 75 days (or 500 hours) of practical physiotherapy skills in a supervised clinical setting;
3. You must work with your workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan to address the deficiencies identified by the Panel in your professional practice being:
a. Clinical reasoning;
b. Clinical theoretical knowledge
c. Clinical understanding;
d. Evaluation of clinical intervention;
e. Action / treatment planning;
f. Discharge planning
4. Within three months of identifying and starting work with a workplace supervisor, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC;
5. You must work with your workplace supervisor to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in the Personal Development Plan;
6. You must allow your work place supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about:
a. your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan;
b. your completion of hours of practical physiotherapy skills in a supervised clinical setting;
7. You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions;
8. Any condition requiring you to provide any information to, or obtain the approval of, the HCPC is to be met by you sending the information to the offices of the HCPC, marked for the attention of the relevant Case Manager;
9. You must promptly inform the HCPC if:
a. there is any change to your employment status;
b. disciplinary proceedings are taken against you by your employer.
10. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;
b. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c. any issues that led to the conviction and misconduct.
The First Review conducted on 20 June 2024
18. The Original Order was first reviewed on 20 June 2024. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented.
19. The First Review Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired on both the personal and the public components. The First Review Panel extended the Conditions of Practice Order for a further period of 12 months. The Conditions of Practice Order was extended without variation. The First Review Panel explained its reasons in the following terms. The paragraph numbers used in the determination of the First Review Panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.
(161) The Panel reminded itself that its task is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired at the current time; and the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense in relation to the need to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.
(162) The Panel noted that the previous panel found a wide range of fundamental aspects of practice which required to be addressed by the Registrant in order that he met the standards expected of a physiotherapist.
(163) The Panel took into account that there is a “persuasive burden” upon the Registrant to demonstrate that he has fully acknowledged and addressed his identified deficiencies, such that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired.
(164) The Panel contrasted the Registrant’s previous full engagement over a lengthy period up until the Conditions of Practice Order was made in June 2023 with the lack of engagement since. The Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC since the Conditions of Practice Order was made in June 2023, and there was no evidence in relation to his compliance with the Conditions of Practice Order. There was therefore no evidence before the Panel to support that the Registrant has developed insight, or addressed the identified failings in his practice, or has enhanced his clinical skills, or of any relevant continuing professional development.
(165) In those circumstances the Panel concluded that the Registrant has not discharged the persuasive burden upon him and that his fitness to practise remains impaired on the grounds of public protection.
(166) In considering the public component of impairment, the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues that arise, particularly the need to maintain confidence in the
profession and declare and uphold proper standards of competence, conduct and behaviour. The Panel determined that public and professional trust and confidence in the profession, professional standards, and the regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made. A finding of impairment was therefore required to uphold standards and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulator.
(167) The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the grounds both of public protection and the public interest.
(168) The Panel considered what, if any, sanction to impose. It was mindful that the purpose is not to punish the Registrant, but instead to ensure the public is protected. The Panel bore in mind the need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the Registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public in arriving at a decision that is proportionate. It kept in mind that it should consider the least restrictive sanction available to it first, and only move to a more restrictive sanction if it considered it necessary to do so.
(169) The Panel considered that the potential sanctions of taking no further action or imposing a caution order were not appropriate due to the serious nature of the concerns relating to the Registrant’s practice and its finding of impairment.
(170) In considering whether to extend or vary the Conditions of Practice Order the Panel took the view that the conditions imposed were workable and comprehensive in addressing the identified deficiencies in the Registrant’s practice.
(171) The Panel was mindful that the concerns first arose in relation to the Registrant’s practice in 2016 and that in June 2023 there was a finding of current impairment. It took into account the Registrant’s subsequent lack of engagement, and considered whether, in those circumstances, it may be necessary to impose a Suspension Order to meet with the public protection and public interest concerns that arise where a registrant is at risk of becoming de-skilled through lack of engagement in professional practice and development.
(172) However, the Panel took account of the Registrant’s previous long history of full and proactive engagement, and the value in allowing the registrant to address his deficiencies through work so that he may become safe to practice unrestricted in due course. It considered that the Conditions of Practice provided appropriate protection of the public and satisfactorily addressed the public interest, and it was appropriate to provide the Registrant with a further opportunity to engage and remediate.
(173) In those circumstances, it determined that it was appropriate and proportionate to extend the current Conditions of Practice Order. Having so decided, the Panel considered the duration of the extension, and noted that the Conditions of Practice require evidence of 500 hours of practical physiotherapy skills demonstrated in a supervised clinical setting. It concluded it would be impracticable for the Registrant to achieve compliance with this condition in anything less than a further 12- month period.
Observations made by the First Review Panel
20. In paragraph 174 of its determination, the First Review Panel made the following observations.
“‘The Panel observed that, unless the Registrant chooses to engage and provide evidence of remediation for the next review, a future panel may consider that a Suspension Order is appropriate (and in circumstances where the Conditions of Practice Order has been in place for more than two years the Panel will have the power to impose a Striking Off Order). However, that will be a matter entirely for that panel to determine on the information before it at that time”.
The Second Review of the Substantive order conducted on 11 July 2025
The Submissions made on behalf of the HCPC
21. Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC took the Panel through the relevant history and summarised the determinations of the two panels that have considered this matter. She submitted that the Registrant was still impaired on both the personal and the public components. In respect of the outcome of this review hearing, Ms Khorassani invited the Panel to extend the Conditions of Practice Order. In brief summary, Ms Khorassani’s submissions in support of the above included the following;
a) The persuasive burden of establishing that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired, falls on the Registrant. This the Registrant has failed to do.
b) In substance nothing has changed since the hearing on 20 June 2024 which undermines the finding of impairment on both the public and the personal components. The Registrant has not attended this review hearing. He has not completed the minimum 75 days or 500 hundred hours of practical physiotherapy skills in a clinical setting as required by Condition 2 of the Conditions of Practice Order.
c) The Registrant has not practised for around 8 years. He has attempted, but failed, to find employment as a Physiotherapist. He says that his failure is attributable to the Conditions of Practice Order. There is some evidence that the Registrant has sought to remediate his failings. In all the circumstances it would be reasonable to extend the Conditions of Practice Order so as to give him a further chance to remediate his failings.
Submissions made by the Registrant
22. The Panel has noted the documentary evidence that the Registrant has submitted as evidence of his attempts to obtain employment as a Physiotherapist. The Panel has noted the email from the Registrant dated 4 July 2025 which is in the following terms;
“Please find attached some cpd courses that i have done. I have been using many online resources to maintain and enhance my Knowledge, skills and professional development e.g. Spire Healthcare Education Manchester, Physiopedia, Physiotherapy Webinar club, Physio Academy, Physio First, Pure unity health, Physiotutors, Alison, Clinical Physio, SmartPt Academy, Learn physio, Physioplus, etc. Also i study books e.g . CSP journal Frontline, Essentials of Orthopaedics & Applied Physiotherapy, Therapeutic Exercise, Tidy’s Physiotherapy, The Principals of exercise therapy, Physiotherapy for respiratory and cardiac problems, Orthopaedic Physical assessment, Neurology for physiotherapist etc,
Please Kindly add these in the Submission. Kind Regards,
M M Rahman
23. The Panel has had regard to the certificates which the Registrant has tendered. They evidence “on line training” between 15 October 2024 and 2 July 2025. The Panel has seen 5 certificates each for one hour of “on line” training. The Panel has also seen documents that suggest that since 2024 the Registrant has approached 5 agencies seeking work as a Physiotherapist.
24. The Panel has also noted the email dated 20 June 2025 to the Case Manager in which the Registrant states “ I am studying books, doing on line study, sharing knowledge with physio friends and colleagues to maintain knowledge and skills:”.
25. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not made any submissions as to the outcome of this review hearing.
The decisions of the Panel made on 11 July 2025
26. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
27. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.
28. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Conditions of Practice Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.
Decision of the Panel on Impairment
29. Having taken account of the submissions made by Ms Khorassani, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, on both the personal and the public components. Its reasons are essentially the same as those given by the First Review Panel. The Registrant has not complied with the Conditions of Practice Order and in particular with Condition 2 of the Order. He has not attended this hearing. He has not provided any material which sufficiently addresses the clinical failings found proved by the Original Panel and confirmed by the First Review Panel. The training that the Registrant has undertaken is all “on line” and is extremely limited in number in content, duration and nature. The Registrant is not presently capable of safe and effective practice. The Registrant has not discharged the burden of proof which rests on him of establishing that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel has concluded that the risk of repetition remains.
30. The Panel also concludes that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be gravely undermined if the Panel was to determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not now impaired and if he was permitted to return to unrestricted practice. Consequently, for the same reasons that are set out in the determinations of both the panels that have considered this matter, the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public components.
Decision of the Panel on Sanction
31. In considering the appropriate order the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS’ Sanctions Policy updated in March 2019, to the submissions of Ms Khorassani, to the determinations of both the previous panels and to the advice of the Legal Assessor.
32. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive and that it must consider the risk of repetition and public confidence in the profession and its regulator.
33. The Panel has considered the sanctions available in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would be wholly inappropriate.
34. The Panel gave consideration to the possibility of extending the Conditions of Practice Order as suggested by Ms Khorassani. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had not made any submissions as to the outcome of this review hearing.
35. The Panel has concluded that Conditions of Practice are no longer appropriate. It is around eight years since the Registrant last practised. It seems highly improbable that he will be able to resume his career as a Physiotherapist. From the documents he has produced and from his emails, the Registrant has claimed that because of the Conditions of Practice now in place, no employer is willing to employ him as a Physiotherapist. In the absence of stringent Conditions of Practice, the Registrant is incapable of safe and effective practice. The Panel can see no merit in a Suspension Order. In these circumstances it is not in the public interest or in the interest of the Registrant to keep this matter in the review cycle. Accordingly, the Panel had decided to make a Striking Off Order which will come into effect at the expiry of the present Conditions of Practice Order namely on 27 July 2025.
36. The Panel has decided that in all the circumstances the appropriate and proportionate order for it to make, both to protect the public and to address the public interest, is to strike the Registrant’s name for the Register.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Mohammad M Rahman from the Register.
Notes
The Order imposed today will apply from 27 July 2025.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mohammad M Rahman
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/07/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Struck off |
| 20/06/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
| 28/06/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Conditions of Practice |
| 13/03/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |
| 09/08/2021 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |