I MUST ALSO ADD:
GMC annual report in 2016 confirmed “We are running pilots in each of the UK’s four countries of safeguards to reduce the risk of our procedures being used to disadvantage whistleblowers, a concern raised by Sir Anthony Hooper QC who was commissioned by the GMC to undertake an independent review of how the GMC deals with whistleblowing”. …..
Source of NMC referrals illustrates 73.33% of employer referrals has resulted in impairment, strike off or other action, whilst only 3.6% members of the public sees a similar result......
The regulators (NMC/ GMC) mostly accept employer referrals but fail to
ascertain as to whether the referred registrant had previously whistle-blown against the referring employer.
In light of the recent PSA report, I would hope that genuine members of the public are listened to rather than regulators acting upon some vexatious employer referrals
Jeremy Corbyn is correct in questioning the PM upon his pledge to bring back the nursing bursary. The below figures illustrate why!!!!
The NMC registration RETENTION FIGURES illustrates an alarming drop of an average means of 4,500 registrants between March 2016 - March 2017..............Please look on the below statistics: (NEVER BEEN KNOWN IN HISTORY TO DROP AS IT DID IN 2017)
On 31 March 2017 there were 690,773 nurses and midwives on the register
On 31 March 2016 there were 692,556 nurses and midwives on the register
On 31 March 2015 there were 686,811 nurses and midwives on the register
On 31 March 2014, there were 680,899 nurses and midwives on the register
On 31 March 2013, there were 675,306 nurses and midwives on the register.
On 31 March 2012, there were 671,668 nurses and midwives on the register.
On 31 March 2011, there were 665,132 nurses and midwives on the register)
UCAS FIGURES IN 2015 = 44,060
UCAS FIGURES IN 2016 = 43,800 – Publication on alleged scrapping of nursing bursaries began.
UCAS FIGURES IN 2017 = 33,810 - DoH officially confirmed scrapping of bursary on 01/08/17, which I originally thought that the UCAS drop had nothing to do with scrapping of the bursaries, I was wrong!!! As the threat of this was already published in 2016.
BREXIT - 46 Nurses from EU countries registered with the NMC in April 2017, compared with 1,304 in July 2016, according to figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Health Foundation...........this still does not equate to the drop in figures in March 2017.
It is transparent that the PM has no plans to reintroduce bursaries BUT merely reiterates how they are going to invest substantial sums into the Health Service. This answer is irrelevant to the question about bursaries.
Will the Government reintroduce the nursing bursaries? YES OR NO?
(1) - The NMC CEO alleges that the regulator spends £20m a year on FtP activities at the moment..... HMMM ???? I believe this figure was relating to 2009-2010.....The FtP NMC annual accounts reports 2015, 2016, 2017 confirms a key driver of an increase in expenditure related to Fitness to Practise to £66.4 million in 2016–2017 (£58 million in 2015–2016).................. I may be wrong but I cannot find any figures alleging “£20m at the moment” or since 2010..............It would seem that the Department of Health/NMC are more focused on financial expenditure rather than exploring innocence of the registrants.
(2) - Ms Smith acknowledged that warnings could be issued by the regulator without agreement from the registrant..........BUT.......... then alleges that registrants would be able to have their case reviewed “on limited grounds” if they were issued with an undertaking, warning or advice. So the NMC are breaching Article 6 (right to a fair trial/hearing) & article 8 (reputation) of HRA 1998 by precluding the registrant to a full hearing. Yet again, the registrant inadvertently has to accept undertakings, warnings without any type of trial, am I correct? And innocent registrants are publicly berated, am I correct?
(3) - So under the NMC Rules Order 2001 & 2004, there is no way of challenging such decisions at the Administrative High Courts which can be done if struck-off or served with an interim/suspension order.
(4) - HOWEVER, I wonder if the NMC could be challenged via a Judicial review such as Johnson & Maggs v Nursing and Midwifery Council  EWHC 2140 (Admin) - “Because no action was taken by the NMC in respect of their registration, the usual right of statutory appeal was not open to the registrants. However, as the registrants were nevertheless left with findings of misconduct against them, they challenged the decision by way of judicial review. (Human Rights Act – Article 6 as it took 8 years)......Accordingly Mr Justice Leggatt could not accept that the evidence adduced by the Committee could support its findings of misconduct and therefore could not see how the Committee could reasonably have found the charges against the registrants proved. The findings of misconduct against the registrants were therefore quashed”............Maggs & Johnson had 1 year to challenge this
(5) JUST A THOUGHT WHICH COULD BE EXPLORED
I am suspicious about nurse Lucy Letby`s criminal investigations and alleged blame for these babies` deaths.... I just wonder if she witnessed unsafe care which caused these deaths and has recently aired her concerns to other colleagues?.............. I may be wrong but my GUT INSTINCT tells me she is innocent, as I am unable to grapple why Nurse Letby is to blame at this point???
Why did the Trust fail on the following:
(1) Staffing on the unit was 21% lower than the recommended safe levels in 2014/15
(2) Pathologists failed to check toxicology, blood electrolytes, or blood sugar tests.
(3) The hospital's reporting policy for unexplained neonatal deaths was inadequate.
Well done Cathryn Watters who has instigated this campaign and supported by the NT
It would also be good to empower registrants to act as self-litigants if legal help is not available. Many registrants should also know that they can apply to Bar Pro Bono if no funds for legal help.
A murderer or rapist will have free counsel/ lawyer but a nurse or midwife has to fund their case themselves or act as a self-litigant irrespective of innocence
The PSA only review cases when the NMC/ CCC quasi judicial courts have concluded too leniently........... Thus giving powers for the PSA (previously known as CHRE) to intervene and appeal these decisions at High Court.
The PSA do not investigate NMC /CCC conclusions if the regulator is wrong, harsh or disregard their own witnesses who whole-heartedly lie under oath which is promptly brushed aside. Motive is never taken into consideration of intentional malice.
The PSA has now discovered how the NMC had failed Morecambe Bay little babies and their families. I wonder why CHRE did not identify this from the outset?
If the NMC has failed to protect the vulnerable,............. the other extreme is that the NMC has failed to protect innocent NMC whistleblowing registrants whom have been unfairly subjected to NMC FtP – especially when referred by malevolent employers.
My point is; the NMC will listen to vexatious employers (which is the largest referrals of complaints) ….....BUT........ they fail to listen to vulnerable families (especially Morecambe Bay & Mid Staffordshire).
This illustrates complete disproportionality which transparently shines through.
The regulator must be either (a) – acting with corrupt intent or; (b) – lack intelligence.
The NMC purport to protect the public but there have been horrendous intentional failings, colluding and cover-ups. These poor parents have gone (and no doubt still going) through hell.
-The NMC refused to rely upon the findings of the coroner re: J. Titcombe`s (JT) case. JT illustrated the NMC response on twitter “The evidence that we can rely on is covered by our legal framework and by decisions made by the High Court. In cases when findings have been made by another tribunal such as a coroner's court, the case law is made clear. The FtP panel should come to its own conclusions regardless of decisions made by another tribunal.........”......... If the NMC wanted to rely upon the coroner's report, they have the power to do so under NMC Rules Order 2001 paragraph 25: “Council’s power to require disclosure of information”........I believe the coroner's report would have been deemed as appropriate under this section.
-The NMC refused to submit or even rely upon JT “chronology”. They had this initially but this somehow curiously disappeared.........Another exercise of “cherry-picking” evidence.
-The NMC spied on JT and set up a google alert when he wrote about them....They were obviously worried about their reputation which supersedes over protection of the public.
-The NMC staff internal mail showed they were berating JT -”they found him to be a nuisance to deal with, they were disrespectful about him and gave the impression that he was not seen as someone who had lost a child or had anything helpful to give to their investigations,”...... How on earth could anyone write such malicious emails internally and how could anyone in their right mind think like this?
-The NMC CCC would not allow JT to call his baby by name (Joshua) at the hearing and told he must only refer to his baby by the name "Baby A".....he obviously refused to do this.
- None of the other families were shown compassion and the NMC failed to maintain transparency with them. This quasi-judicial regulator has contributed to prolonged harm by protecting MB and relevant midwives. This is despicable and appalling and I am afraid an “apology” is simply not good enough for these families. All relevant members of both public authorities should be held accountable and NOT just “lessons learned”......
The NMC FtP screening process over 4 stages does not identify nor intend to identify malicious referrals. The GMC are running pilots in each of the UK’s four countries of safeguards to reduce the risk of their procedures being used to disadvantage whistleblowers, a concern raised by Sir Anthony Hooper QC who was commissioned by the GMC to undertake an independent review of how the GMC deals with whistle-blowing. The changes include new referral forms requiring any health organisation raising a concern about a doctor to disclose whether the doctor had previously raised concerns about patient safety. I wonder why the NMC are still avoiding such steps to emulate the good practices of the GMC which could potentially save millions of pounds if vexatious referrals were identified from the FtP screening outset.
Another “Think Tank” called CIVITAS carried out a survey about vexatious referrals to the GMC in 2012-2013 and concluded an average of 2,000 referrals were actually vexatious.
There seems to be no screening process to filter out vexatious referrals and motives for this; therefore deeming the nurse / midwife as being guilty from the outset OR No Case to Answer/ Not guilty many years later which by this time has caused a great deal of harm to the registrant.
I understand the analogy behind the NMC proposals but need to question the following:
(a) - ECHR Article 6 is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to have a fair hearing. BUT many without legal representation do not attend CCC or Interim Order hearings............So can I presume that the ones who do not attend these public hearings will be offered full transcripts without having to request them?
(b) - What are the annual statistics of registrants being "struck off", "impaired" or "sanctioned" on those who attend and those who do not attend hearings? A comparison would be appreciated
(c) - Majority of referred registrants will refuse to attend a full CCC hearing based upon the pretence that a private paper hearing will deal with their evidence in a fair manner via the "Investigatory Committee" hearing. So how will NMC/CCC private hearings differ from "Investigatory Committee" hearings?
(d) - Unfortunately, the panel can cherry pick evidence based upon witness statements and testimonies (who can be demonstrably untruthful and not of honest opinion), but disregard overwhelming supporting contemporaneous evidence....how will this be avoided?
(e) - The NMC or their counsel / barrister/ and CCC court can rely upon witness statements as "used" evidence and disregard "used/unused" contemporaneous evidence which can support the registrant..........SO will the NMC surrender all contemporaneous evidence to the CCC/ private hearings? And will an INDEX be provided which can hopefully be reflected upon the full transcripts of the private hearings?
(f) - Can the registrant submit their supporting and additional evidence under NMC rule 31 as "used evidence" to ensure a fair balanced hearing?......OR........ Will the NMC and CCC/ private hearing panel use what they feel is appropriate?
MY POINT IS, WILL ALL USED, UNUSED AND REGISTRANTS` CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE BE SUBMITTED UNDER A FULL INDEX WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY BE REFLECTED WHAT WAS USED AND WHAT WAS NOT USED ON THE FULL TRANSCRIPTS?
IF CERTAIN EVIDENCE WAS NOT RELIED UPON, THEN A VALID REASON WOULD NEED TO BE GIVEN TO ALLOW HIGH COURT APPEALS.
I WILL ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR INNOCENT REGISTRANTS TO ATTEND NMC HEARINGS.