Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel suspends Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil over clinical competence failings
An HCPTS panel suspended physiotherapist Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil for 12 months after finding repeated assessment, reasoning and record-keeping failings amounted to lack of competence.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 25 June 2025 · 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 Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH128318).
Decision date: 25 June 2025 · Hearing started 16 June 2025 and ended 25 June 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that physiotherapist Pratiksha Venkatesh Patil lacked competence across assessments, clinical reasoning and record keeping, placing patients at risk despite support and supervision. It found most allegations proved but found allegations 6 and 7 not proved. The panel found current impairment on personal and public grounds, suspended her for 12 months and imposed an 18-month interim suspension during any appeal.
Charges
The 15-part allegation concerned assessments, clinical reasoning and treatment of service users, including balance and mobility tests, recognition of a potential clinical red flag, falls-risk work, walking-aid advice, record keeping, joint tests, a knee brace and copying results between patient records. The matters were alleged to amount to lack of competence and impairment.
Findings
The Panel found allegations 1 to 5 and 8 to 15 proved, with allegation 13(b) proved as to going to remove the knee brace. It found allegations 6 and 7 not proved. It concluded that the proved facts showed a lack of competence and current impairment on personal and public grounds. It imposed a 12-month suspension and an interim suspension for the appeal period, subject to a maximum of 18 months.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Some evidence of difficult personal circumstances during this employment, having trained abroad and moved to the UK to take up this role; No evidence of any previous fitness to practise proceedings.
Aggravating factors
Repeated deficiencies despite support over a sustained period; Actual harm caused to a patient; Lack of insight or any remediation; Lack of engagement with the hearing process.
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.