Nurse Registration : Unexpected Outcomes at Professional Conduct Hearings

Any contributions, with links, are welcome to this from all countries.


Nurse removed from register for eating  a resident’s fish and chips (2015)

Nurse cautioned by the NMC for hitting  a patient (2013)

Poor care of a diabetic patient.  Who is accountable?

“A senior midwife who went home instead of helping a heavily pregnant woman and her unborn child – who both later died – has been suspended for just three months.” (2014)  A Hodgekiss (Ack AnnDitch twitter)  via EIN news Simpson F (2015) “A woman has been left ‘gobsmacked’ after three nurses who left her disabled partner lying in his own urine were not struck off – despite being found guilty of professional misconduct”- cautions were given.  ack YVM and End ElderAbuse twitter-

“A MANAGER who was in charge of a notorious care home where institutional abuse contributed to the deaths of residents is being allowed back into the profession six months after being suspended from nursing.” (ibid). Charges included orders to staff to destroy medical records, ineffective medication procedures, ignored and labelled residents.

Yes- we know there are mitigating circumstances to consider, and different people on different committees.


32 thoughts on “Nurse Registration : Unexpected Outcomes at Professional Conduct Hearings

  1. Not forgetting the midwife who caused the death of mother & baby who got supervisory order for 3 months. She had a top flight barrister fighting her case. Commitee obviously influenced

  2. The NMC could not proceed because they said that the nurse said she was a junior staff nurse at the time. This conflicted with what the CEO of the Hospital referred to the nurse as “Junior Sister”.
    The NMC recognised the seriousness of referral but said that they accepted that the nurse was a junior staff nurse and therefore exonerated.

  3. A referrer to the NMC was informed that no nurse of that name was stated as being at work at a particular hospital.
    Yet the said nurse had written in medical records.
    As such no investigation ever took place.

  4. A referrer to the NMC was informed that they would not investigate a CEO of hospital trust. This was because the nurse was not employed as a nurse. Furthermore the NMC pointed out the absence of adverse PHSO Decisions.

  5. The NMC confused issues pertaining to two separate people.
    This was a clear-cut issue about one nurse who promised the referrer to keep in touch and tell of progress. This was in a letter over 3 years ago. The Trust has since closed.

  6. The NMC formally acknowledged receipt of a referral. But the referrer waited in vain to hear anything back. There was no letter of outcome.
    The referrer then returned to NMC asking what had happened. The NMC invited the referrer to make a new referral. The referrer sent the NMC the original referral along with their acknowledgement.
    Finally a letter of outcome was received about 22 months or so after the original referral was made.
    The NMC did apologise for delay in providing letter of outcome.

  7. I get the impression that the NMC is keen to listen to what a Trust says.

    This to my mind is not acceptable.

    It should be done like the Ombudsman service where a totally neutral person or personnel investigate who have absolutely no bearing on anyone’s professional status but simply investigates the facts of the case.

    There could be very good examples of why the nurse or nurses in question failed to meet required standards and some of those could be the fault of management structure; trust policies and procedures; a bullying culture or simply an overstretched staff who are under pressure to service many patients and faced with a choice went to another patient in need rather than to the patient who perhaps then makes a complaint that the nurse neglected their needs and suffered in consequence.

    This ties in with the whistleblowing in the NHS for example. If a nurse is concerned about a given situation and reports it to the Trust, the Trust might turn on the whistleblower and the whistleblower might then be investigated in turn by the very Trust about which he/she is making complaint.

    In an unrelated article the issue of Dr Raj Mattu has just settled at Employment Tribunal for several millions of pounds. He was a whislteblower.

  8. The referrer complained about poor record-keeping.
    Instead of any investigation taking place and anyone held to account it was just closed down with no case to answer.
    This seems to be a major issue though as it can have serious consequences if staff omit
    a] hospital number
    b] patient’s name
    c] put the wrong details

  9. Pingback: Nurses Trying to Nurse– | NURSE BLOG INTERNATIONAL

  10. BUT Ms. Biggs has only been served with an 18 month interim suspension order which means that at any such review hearing the panel may revoke the order, it may confirm the order or it may replace it with an interim condition of practice order….. SO THIS MIDWIFE will not be struck off but will have a review hearing in October 2016 (Where the NMC/ CCC panel may revoke the order completely or replace it with a conditions of practice that will enable her to work as a midwife again)…. BUT if they continue to keep her suspended, she will then be reviewed every 3 months until they revoke the order………. How can this regulator profess to protect the public? When they struck off a nurse for eating a few chips off a patient’s plate……. These disproportionate NMC/ CCCSH outcomes need to be investigated…

    • Vedanta Ive found you.. I have 3 cases currently with the NMC involving complaints of abuse at all 3 prior to referral. The first was eventually confirmed by the CQC who rang me and wished me luck with my hearings. I self represent and completely identify with your experiences. I am on face book and am currently dealing with the second case. 5 ridiculous charges brought by the grotiest NH imaginable where residents were deliberately underfed and underhydrated. I have accused the NMC of complicity in all three cases.. tampering evidence and making up false finding in regard to the third case of a MH male rehab unit marching pts around by the back of necks. Their resulting internal inquiry acknowledged some wrong-doing in single staff restraining and sent them on extra training but the NMC declared in case assessment (Neil Maloney) that their investigation found nothing amiss and didn’t require action!!!! Also that their restraint was pre-planned to provide “guidance”. Well Ive gone all out and the NMC have started a level 2 investigation should be reporting 25.7.16 but they’ve gone wobbly and postponed to 17.8.16. ALSO primary complaint is that proven abuses have been ignored and not taken up by the NMC so in dereliction of duty of whatever they exist for etc etc. Ive also written to Morgan-Blakelock asking WtF they think theyre playing at tampering and changing evidence and leading dishonesties etc etc. Also social services SG who have claimed not to have had any evidence prior to CQC raid on first service that confirmed everything complained about. They had evidence on daily records for first and weight records for second plus the major 60 yr old risk resident chronically underweight and the subject of malicious bullshit counter charges following extended major concern at the time died during their fucking investigation in June 2015 !!! Ive demanded body weights and cause of death.

    • NMC High Profile Case Manager
      Closing date for completed applications: 12:00 noon Tuesday 19 July 2016
      High Profile Case Manager
      £46,681 per annum plus benefits
      1 year fixed-term contract
      About us
      The Nursing and Midwifery Council exists to protect the public. We do this by ensuring that only those who meet our requirements are allowed to practise as a nurse or midwife in the UK. We take action if concerns are raised about whether a nurse or midwife is fit to practise.
      About the role
      An exciting opportunity has arisen within the Fitness to Practise Directorate (FtP) for a High Profile Case Manager. This key post will work across the Directorate, leading on the operational management of the most serious and complex high profile cases. You will be responsible for analysing and scrutinising cases, making case progression recommendations and decisions and providing critical challenge, where required, regarding the directorate’s management of these cases. You will be the lead for key stakeholder engagement both internally and externally, monitoring complaints and giving advice and direction to case owners, managers and lawyers, to ensure a high quality service on these high profile cases. You will have line management responsibility for a team of investigation paralegals, ensuring that team objectives are met in support of departmental KPIs. You will be responsible for ensuring that external providers of investigation legal services are delivering on high profile case work, and will formulate action plans to address identified risks, ensuring that work is prioritised and completed in order to meet our statutory obligations.
      About you
      To be successful in this role you will have experience of working in a politically sensitive environment dealing with high profile sensitive issues. You will have demonstrable line management experience, including setting team and individual objectives, staff development, and performance management. You will have proven operational management and demonstrable ability to work within defined procedures, challenging targets and high quality standards. You will have significant analytical and investigative experience and the management of a caseload of cases under investigation. You will be a highly effective communicator and skilled at negotiation, advising and influencing.
      To apply
      For more information about the role please read the job description and the person specification.
      If you feel that this role is for you, please complete the application form and the recruitment monitoring form and send them together with a copy of your CV to
      This role is currently vacant therefore the successful candidate will need to be able to start work immediately.
      For any application related queries please contact
      Closing date for applications: 12:00 noon, Tuesday 19 July 2016.

  11. Lenin Nightingale-
    The screening process needs to be much more rigorous, involving full investigation, and a robust checklist used to reduce bias.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s