Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Paramedic given two-month suspension for dishonest mentorship portfolio

At the July hearing, Mohammed Qasim Hussain's panel found public-interest impairment only, recognised remediation and refused an interim order.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 16 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 2 months

Data last checked: 22 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 Mohammed Qasim Hussain, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA50921).

Decision date: 16 July 2026 · Hearing started 13 July 2026 and ended 16 July 2026

This sanction period has elapsed.

In plain English

At his July 2026 hearing, paramedic Mohammed Qasim Hussain received a two-month suspension from 13 August for a dishonest mentorship portfolio. The panel accepted significant insight and remediation and found no current personal impairment, but imposed suspension to uphold public confidence. It refused an interim order. This decision preceded the separate September review of his suspension.

Charges

Dishonestly submitting a mentorship portfolio with a colleague's forged signatures, a statement falsely attributed to her and unverified practice hours. References to another colleague were removed where no evidence supported them.

Findings

The amended facts and dishonesty were admitted and found to amount to misconduct. The panel accepted genuine remorse, significant insight and remediation and found a low risk of repetition, with no personal-component impairment. It found impairment on public-interest grounds alone and imposed two months' suspension from 13 August 2026. It expressly refused an interim order because necessity was not established. This is the July substantive decision, preceding the separate September review.

Mitigating factors

The Registrant had been open and honest with the Panel and accepted its findings on impairment; He had demonstrated genuine remorse and demonstrated good insight; He had undertaken targeted learning and developed a meaningful action plan; This had been a one-off incident in the sense that it was about getting a piece of coursework completed, albeit that the conduct took place over a period of a few weeks. There was no evidence of a generalised tendency of dishonesty; The Registrant’s health and his difficulty managing his coursework alongside his work, and in turn a fear of falling behind, had contributed to his decision-making.

Aggravating factors

The potential for patient harm had the forged signatures and statement had not been picked up; A degree of thought or planning went into the Registrant’s actions; He denied his actions during the internal investigation; There had been a lack of regard for the impact on Colleague A, whose signature had been forged.

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.