Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Nadeem Ishtiaq, doctor (General Medical Council 7029167).
Decision date: 23 February 2026 · Hearing started 16 February 2026 and ended 23 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that the dishonesty allegations against Dr Nadeem Ishtiaq were not proved. He had failed the practical part of an Advanced Life Support course on 27 October 2024 and later sent Locumlink Healthcare a certificate of completion that had been generated in error by the course booking system. The tribunal accepted that he genuinely believed the certificate showed he had passed and decided his actions were not dishonest. It found no misconduct, did not consider impairment, and concluded the case with no sanction.
Charges
It was alleged that on 27 October 2024 Dr Ishtiaq attended the Resuscitation Council e-Advanced Life Support course and did not pass the Cardiac Arrest Simulation Test (CAST) element. On 7 December 2024 he emailed Locumlink Healthcare attaching a Certificate of Completion and stating that he had passed the CAST element. It was further alleged that he knew he had not successfully completed the Course and that his conduct was dishonest. Paragraphs 1 and 2 (attendance, failure of the CAST, sending the Certificate, and stating he had passed) were admitted and found proved.
Findings
The Tribunal found that on 7 December 2024, after Dr Ishtiaq logged into the course provider's secure portal, a Certificate of Completion in his name was auto-generated due to a software setting in the booking system Cademy of which the provider was unaware. The Tribunal accepted Dr Ishtiaq's evidence that he genuinely believed the Certificate showed he had passed the Course. Paragraph 3 (knowledge that he had not completed the Course) and paragraph 4 (dishonesty) were found not proved. The Tribunal concluded that the admitted facts did not amount to misconduct, that there was no legal basis for considering impairment, and that issuing a warning would be disproportionate. Case concluded.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service 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.