Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil
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 (PH128318):
1. On or around 21 February 2023 you:
a. Did not adequately tailor the physiotherapy assessment to Service User A’s presenting complaint;
b. Prescribed breathing exercises for Service User A, when Service User A did not have any breathing issues;
c. Recorded in Service User A’s notes that Service User A had breathing issues, when this was not the case.
2. On or around 22 March 2023 when attending Service User B:
a. When carrying out a Timed Unsupported Stand (TUSS) assessment, you did not ensure that the environment was safe for Service User B and/or that Service User B had something to hold onto if needed;
b. You did not correctly take Service User B through the required steps for a TUSS assessment;
c. When carrying out a Romberg Test, you did not correctly take Service User B through the required steps for a Romberg Test; and/or
d. When Service User B began to sway whilst standing with their eyes closed, you tapped them on the shoulder, which was unnecessary and/or unsafe.
3. On or around 22 March 2023, when attending to Service User C, you were unable to demonstrate competence in assessing Service User C for a walking aid.
4. On or around 31 March 2023, when Service User D told you that they had chronic lower back pain and had experienced some new trouble with their bladder:
a. you did not ask follow up questions; and/or
b. you did not identify this as a potential ‘red flag’ which required further investigation.
5. On or around 18 April 2024 when attending Service User E, who required a falls risk assessment and a standard physiotherapy assessment, you:
a. Did not adequately complete the main components of the TUSS assessment;
b. When completing outcome measures relating to balance, you did not ensure that the environment was safe for Service User E and/or that Service User E had something to hold onto if needed;
c. Did not adequately carry out a walking stick check and/or a walking stick adjustment.
6. On or around 19 April 2023 you:
a. Conducted outcome measures with Service User F which related to balance, which were not relevant to Service User F’s presenting complaint; and/or
b. Discussed with Service User F balance exercises which were not relevant to Service User F’s presenting complaint.
7. On or around 24 April 2023, you prescribed breathing exercises for Service User G which were inappropriate for Service User G’s presenting complaint of balance issues.
8. On or around 11 May 2023:
a. You inaccurately recorded in Service User H’s notes that Service User H had attended hospital, which was incorrect;
b. You inaccurately recorded in Service User H’s notes that Service User H had fallen out of bed, which was incorrect;
c. You did not record in Service User H’s notes information about how Service User H was completing transfers between care calls; and/or
d. You did not record in Service User H’s notes that Service User H was unsuitable for a rehabilitation programme at that time due to Service User H’s high pain levels.
9. On or around 16 May 2023, you advised that Service User I should have a four wheeled walker to walk outside, when this was impractical and/or unsafe because Service User I would not be able to manoeuvre this up and down the steps outside their home.
10. On or around 22 May 2023, when assessing Service User J, who used an oxygen tank and a wheelchair, you:
a. Transferred Service User J to bed without checking his oxygen levels;
b. Completed range of movement and strength testing with Service User J whilst they were in a crooked position, when these tests should have been carried out whilst they were lying flat;
c. Although Service User J said that he could walk with his frame, you did not conduct a mobility assessment;
d. Did not make accurate and/or complete records for Service User J, in that:
i. You recorded that Service User J lived with his grandson, when he lived alone;
ii. You recorded that Service User J was admitted to hospital on Christmas evening, when he was admitted on 13 December;
iii. You recorded that Service User J was discharged from hospital in February, when he was discharged on 25 December;
iv. You recorded that Service User J suffered with COPD, when he did not have COPD; and/or
v. You recorded that Service User J used a 6 litre oxygen supply whilst walking, when he used a 4-5 litre oxygen supply.
11. On or around 30 May 2023, when attending Service User K, you:
a. Did not know and/or did not demonstrate knowledge of how to conduct a falls risk assessment;
b. When Service User K reported that they were unable to fully straighten their knees, you did not identify that they may have contractures and/or;
c. When Service User K reported lower back pain radiating into their leg, you did not adequately carry out a straight leg raise test.
12. On or around 5 June 2023, when attending Service User L, who had knee and ankle complaints, you did not conduct any joint-related tests.
13. On or around 6 June 2023, when attending to Service User M, who had recently been discharged from hospital:
a. You did not ask to see Service User M’s hospital discharge summary; and/or
b. You removed or went to remove Service User M’s knee brace without first consulting their doctor.
14. On or around 9 June 2023, you did not make accurate and/or complete records following an assessment of Service User N, in that you recorded that they had bilateral strength of 5/5 when:
a. You had not tested Service User N’s strength during the assessment; and/or
b. This was in contradiction to your record that Service User N had limited hip flex on the right side due to pain.
15. On a date between 23 January 2023 and 30 June 2023:
a. When attending to Service User O, who had Oedema, you did not conduct palpation until prompted to do so;
b. When completing notes of your visit with Service User O, you included results from a Godet’s sign test conducted with a previous patient and/or recorded results which were not accurate for Service User;
c. When completing notes of your visit with Service User O you did not record the results of the palpation; and/or
d. When completing notes of your visit with Service User O you recorded that Service User O had limited range of movement due to swelling when Service User O had no limitation of movement.
16. The matters set out in particulars 1-15 above constitute lack of competence.
17. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1.The Panel had information before it that the Notice of Hearing had been served on the Registrant by email at her registered email address on 13 May 2026.
2. The Panel took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor, as well as the HCPTS’ Practice Note entitled “Service of Documents”.
3. The Panel concluded that there had been good service in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”).
Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant
4. Ms Khorassani, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She referred the Panel to the efforts that had been made by the HCPC and the HCPTS to engage with the Registrant since the previous substantive hearing in June 2025, but confirmed that the Registrant had not replied to these attempts to engage with her. Ms Khorassani confirmed that she had checked the HCPC system this morning for any response or communication from the Registrant but there was none.
5. Ms Khorassani referred to the principles set out in R v Hayward, Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162. She submitted that the public interest in conducting these proceedings in an expeditious manner meant that the hearing should proceed, there being no evidence that the Registrant would attend if the hearing were to be adjourned. In addition, Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing. Ms Khorassani emphasised that this was a statutory review which had to take place, as the Suspension Order was otherwise due to expire on 23 July 2026.
6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel considered the principles in R v Jones [2002] UKHL5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and was aware that the discretion to proceed in the Registrant's absence should be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
7. The Panel took into account that the HCPC had contacted the Registrant by the email held on the HCPC register on 30 October 2025, 9 January 2026, 13 May 2026, 14 May 2026 and 28 May 2026 with regard to, amongst other matters, the substantive order review process, offering guidance. The Panel was aware from a telephone attendance note that the HCPC had attempted to call the Registrant on 29 May 2026 but there was no answer. The HCPTS emailed the Registrant on 2 and 4 June 2026 and asking if she would be attending today’s hearing, as well as other questions to prepare for today’s hearing. All reasonable efforts had been taken to inform the Registrant of the hearing and explain the process to her. The Registrant has not replied to any of these communications.
8. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was, or ought to be, aware of the hearing. The Panel took into account that no request for an adjournment had been made by the Registrant. In light of her previous non-attendance at the substantive hearing in June 2025, and that the apparent last contact with the Registrant by the HCPC was in November 2023, the Panel considered that she was unlikely to attend should the hearing be adjourned. The Panel also took into account that the Suspension Order was due to expire on 23 July 2026 and would lapse if not reviewed before that date. Although the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant may be disadvantaged by her non-attendance, she had not submitted any documentation in preparation for this hearing, and had voluntarily absented herself.
9. The Panel therefore decided that it was fair, in the public interest, and in the interests of justice, to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
Background
10. The Registrant was employed by HCRG Care Group as a Band 5 Physiotherapist. She began this role on 23 January 2023. Her probationary period was extended due to concerns about her competence, and her contract was subsequently terminated on 30 June 2023.
11. HCRG Care Group referred the Registrant to the HCPC on 7 July 2023, citing concerns in relation to her performance whilst she was in their employment. The referral raised a number of concerns, including the Registrant’s ability to carry out basic physiotherapy assessments.
12. Additionally, concerns were raised about the Registrant’s knowledge and ability in risk assessing patients’ conditions, using appropriate outcome measures, and her clinical reasoning. The referral raised further concerns about the Registrant’s knowledge and ability in formulating individualised goal sheets and exercise plans relevant to patient conditions, documenting assessments, and copying information from previous patient assessments into current records. Further concerns were raised that the Registrant did not seek advice or assistance when unsure about a procedure and did not ask for support.
13. Documentation supplied to the HCPC by HCRG Care Group suggested that the Registrant had probationary review meetings with her manager in February, March and May 2023, when deficits in her performance were identified, including concerns about basic and fundamental areas of practice, such as communication, clinical reasoning, appropriate assessments, and documentation. She was given the opportunity to improve with her statutory probation period extended, but on 23 June 2023 HCRG Care Group terminated her employment on the grounds that they considered the Registrant was not safe to practice independently.
14. At a substantive hearing on 16-25 June 2025, a number of factual allegations were found proved, namely Particulars 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8a, 8c, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13a, 13b (in part), 14 and 15. The Registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired on the basis of the personal and public components, and a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months was imposed by way of a sanction.
15. The previous substantive decision on impairment and sanction included the following paragraphs:
“63. Whilst the Panel considered that the deficiencies are remediable, there is no evidence before the Panel of any steps taken by the Registrant to reflect on her practice, and no evidence of any further work as a Physiotherapist. The Panel has no evidence of insight or any remediation by the Registrant. The evidence the Panel has heard indicates that the Registrant did not engage positively with the support and supervision she received and that is indicative of a lack of insight and reflection by the Registrant. The Panel has no information about the Registrant’s current circumstances. There is no evidence of any training or professional development having been undertaken, and there are no references or testimonials.
64. With the tests suggested in the Grant case in mind, the Panel decided that in these circumstances there is a real risk of repetition of the lack of competence. It concluded that the Registrant is liable in the future to place patients at real risk of harm, and she is liable in the future to breach fundamental tenets of the profession, namely that she is unable to practice safely, effectively or autonomously. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.
65. The Panel next considered the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding proper professional standards. The Panel decided that, in light of its serious findings, that a member of the public would be greatly concerned were the Registrant to be permitted to practice on an unrestricted basis given she placed patients at real risk of harm due to her lack of competence. The Registrant’s lack of competence is therefore liable to bring the profession into disrepute.
66. The Panel decided that not to find the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired would undermine public confidence in Physiotherapists. Furthermore, it would fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards. It would also undermine public confidence in the regulator.
67. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is therefore currently impaired on both the personal and public components following HCPC guidance….
75. The Panel has found there was a lack of progress by the Registrant in the role despite support and constant supervision. The Panel has found persistent, general and serious failures in professional standards over a sustained period of support. These failures were wide ranging across core professional skills – clinical assessment and reasoning, communication and record keeping. As a result, there was harm caused and a risk of harm to patients. Furthermore, the Registrant has not engaged to any meaningful extent in this process. There is no evidence of insight or remediation.
76. As a result, the Panel decided that it could have no confidence that the Registrant would be willing or able to comply with any conditions of practice that may be imposed. She did not progress or respond positively to the supervision and support she received over five months in the role. Mindful of the lack of evidence of any insight, remediation or engagement, the Panel decided that conditions would not be effective, realistic or workable and would fail to properly reflect the seriousness and depth of the lack of competence found.
77. The Panel decided that a Suspension Order was the proportionate and appropriate sanction. That sanction would reflect the seriousness of the findings. The Panel was mindful of paragraph 121 which states that suspension may be appropriate where:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.
78. Whilst there is no evidence of insight by the Registrant and the Panel has found there is a likelihood of repetition, the Panel was of the view that the findings represent a serious breach of the professional standards set out in the decision above. These standards are core professional standards and represent essential professional proficiencies that the Registrant breached repeatedly and so placed patients at risk of harm.
79. In all the circumstances of this case, the Panel accordingly decided that a Suspension Order for 12 months is the proportionate sanction. That period will proportionately and properly mark and reflect the gravity of the findings.
80. The Panel was mindful that it is not in a position to impose a Striking Off Order at this time.
81. A future reviewing Panel would likely be assisted by:
• Written reflections on her clinical practice with the employer, and on her lack of engagement with the regulator;
• Any relevant references, testimonials, training or personal development undertaken;
• An up to date CV identifying any further physiotherapy related work and CPD.”
Submissions
16. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the basis of both the personal and the public components. Miss Khorassani submitted that given the lack of engagement by the Registrant, the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden on her to prove that she had addressed the concerns and demonstrated adequate insight. Ms Khorassani invited the Panel to conclude that the only appropriate sanction in this case was to extend the Suspension Order for a further period of 12 months from the date of the expiry.
17. There were no submissions from the Registrant before the Panel.
Decision
18. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
19. The Panel was aware that it must exercise its own independent judgement with regard to impairment, but that there was a persuasive burden on the Registrant at this review hearing to satisfy the panel that she had addressed the concerns and deficiencies found at the original substantive hearing.
20. There has been no evidence before today’s Panel from the Registrant demonstrating the level of her insight. Further, there is a lack of any evidence that she has taken any steps to address the lack of competence found proved or any evidence about steps taken to maintain her professional skills and knowledge. The Registrant has not sought to comply with any of the recommendations made by the substantive panel as to the kind of information which may assist this Panel. These factors led the Panel to conclude that a real risk of repetition remained in respect of the lack of competence, for the reasons explained by the substantive panel.
21. With regard to wider public interest which includes public confidence in the profession, and the maintenance of proper standards,the Panel took into account that the lack of competence has not been addressed by the Registrant, with the consequent risk to patient safety, in the context of a lack of any engagement by the Registrant with these proceedings, since telephone contact was made by the HCPC with the Registrant in November 2023. In such circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that a fully informed and fair-minded member of the public would be gravely concerned if the Registrant were returned to unrestricted practice. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances of this case.
22. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired in respect of the personal and public components.
23. The Panel next went on to consider a sanction, and took into account the Sanctions Policy (SP) dated 2 March 2026. The Panel bore in mind that any sanction which might be imposed is a matter for its own independent judgment, and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and uphold the wider public interest. Further, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order that it makes be the least restrictive order necessary to protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel was aware that in considering proportionality, the panel must not interfere with the registrant's right to practise any more than necessary to address the concerns or risks in this case. In addition, the impact upon the Registrant must not be disproportionate when considering the nature of those risks. The Panel was aware that impact upon the Registrant can take the form of financial impact, reputational impact, an impact upon one's general right to practise one's profession as well as to demonstrate remediation while in clinical practice.
24. As the Panel was advised by the Legal Assessor, a Striking Off Order was not available as a sanction because, this being a lack of competence case, there must have been a period of suspension or conditions of practice order for two years by way of a substantive sanction, before a Striking Off Order can be made.
25. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature of the Registrant’s lack of competence which has not been remedied, and the ongoing risk to public protection, it would be inappropriate to take no action. It would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession.
26. The Panel then considered a Caution Order. There was a real risk of repetition of the lack of competence, and the Registrant has not demonstrated a good level of insight or remediation. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public and meet the public interest.
27. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. Despite support and monitoring, the Registrant had been unable to progress, as found by the substantive panel. Further, on the basis of the Registrant’s lack of engagement there is no indication that she would be willing or able to comply with conditions. Nor is there evidence of insight which would be important for conditions to be workable. The Panel therefore decided that conditions would be unworkable and neither sufficient to protect the public, nor in the public interest.
28. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. As already stated, there is a real risk of repetition of the lack of competence which occurred in a wide range of areas of practice over a period of time. In light of the Registrant’s lack of engagement and failure to submit any evidence of insight, reflection and remediation, the real risk of repetition remains. In such circumstances, the Panel concluded that Suspension was the only appropriate sanction sufficient to protect the public or uphold the wider public interest.
29. The Panel concluded that a further Suspension Order should run for a period of 12 months, a duration which was proportionate to reflect the absence of any evidence of insight or remediation.
30. The Panel therefore decided to extend the Suspension Order for a period of 12 months from the date of expiry, namely 23 July 2026. This decision is made pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.
31. The Panel also decided that a future reviewing Panel would likely be assisted by:
• The Registrant’s attendance virtually;
• Written reflections on her clinical practice with the employer, and on her lack of engagement with the regulator;
• Any relevant references, testimonials, training or personal development undertaken;
• An up to date CV identifying any further physiotherapy related work and CPD.
32. That concludes this determination.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil for a further period of 12 months, from the date the current suspension order expires, namely from 23 July 2026.
Notes
No notes available
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/06/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
| 16/06/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |