Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Occupational therapist suspended over failure to seek urgent care

An HCPC panel suspended Eme Ufomba for 12 months after finding reckless failures during a home visit and a continuing risk of repetition.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 July 2023 · Updated 23 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning Eme S Ufomba, occupational therapist (Health and Care Professions Council OT53882).

Decision date: 21 July 2023 · Hearing started 17 July 2023 and ended 21 July 2023

In plain English

The HCPC panel found that Eme Ufomba failed to obtain urgent medical help for a vulnerable service user and did not adequately document her reasoning. Because her insight and remediation remained very limited, it suspended her registration for 12 months.

Charges

During a home visit, the occupational therapist failed to recognise a vulnerable service user's need for urgent medical assessment, left the person unattended, did not call an ambulance or alert other professionals, delayed treatment, and failed to record her clinical rationale.

Findings

The panel found misconduct and current impairment. It concluded that the registrant's acts and omissions were reckless, created a risk of serious harm, and remained liable to repetition because her insight and remediation were extremely limited.

Mitigating factors

• The Panel considered the timing of the incident, being in the midst of a COVID 19 pandemic, as highly relevant, as this will have presented additional challenges to an already struggling health and social care system. • The Panel noted that this was a one-off incident, and that the Registrant has no regulatory history. • The Panel accepted that the Registrant had shown some care and compassion in dealing with Service User 1. • The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had engaged in the regulatory process and had attended the hearing.

Aggravating factors

• The Panel found the Registrant’s insight to be extremely limited and as she had failed to recognise her failings the risk of repetition remains high. Whilst there was some care and compassion shown towards Service User 1 the Panel found that this was misdirected and did not focus upon her immediate medical needs. In addition, the Registrant failed to demonstrate that she had considered Service User 1’s wishes and feelings and respond accordingly. The Registrant failed to recognise that she may have made Service User 1’s condition worse by both moving her and delaying her medical assessment and/or treatment. • In considering remediation the Panel found that whilst the Registrant had reflected on the fact that in the future she would write more detailed notes and telephone for an ambulance, this appeared to be more to protect the Registrant from future regulatory investigation rather than out of concern for the safety of service users. • Health care professionals have a duty of candour and a professional duty to be open and honest when things go wrong with the care, treatment and service they have provided. The Panel found that in this situation the Registrant had been less than open and honest in her account to the Panel. • The Panel considered the issue of remediation and found this lacking on the part of the Registrant. The Registrant did not recognise the deficiencies in her conduct, and there was no evidence that she had made changes to her practice as a result of any lessons learnt or as a result of the online training which she has undertaken. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s attempts at remediation have been hindered by her lack of insight.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.