Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

NMC criticised by judge over its handling of case of nurse accused of harming own baby

  • 4 Comments

The nursing regulator has been criticised by a High Court judge for making “minimal effort” to establish the fitness to practise of a nurse accused of injuring – or allowing harm to come to – her own baby.

The nurse – who cannot be named to protect the child’s identity – had previously appeared before the Family Court, which concluded she and her partner were both potentially responsible for serious “non-accidental” injuries, including multiple bruises and fractures , sustained when the baby was just weeks old.

“They were decisions which no reasonable NMC or committee could have reached”

Elizabeth Laing

Neither the nurse or her partner were prosecuted but the child was removed from their care. The nurse was subsequently dismissed by her employer after a disciplinary hearing, which found she had failed to protect her baby.

However, when she appeared before a Nursing and Midwifery Council hearing charged with being “directly or indirectly” responsible for harming a baby – amounting to misconduct – the competence and conduct committee was told there was “no evidence” and found there was “no case to answer”.

The decision was challenged by the super-regulator the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which argued that the NMC had failed to adequately investigate the charge – a claim upheld in the High Court by Mrs Justice Elizabeth Laing, who flagged up a series of “evident errors”.

In her ruling last month, she concluded the NMC’s approach to gathering evidence was “flawed”. Investigators had failed to collate witness statements and key documents, including GP and health visitor records, a transcript of the Family Court proceedings and copy of its judgement, she noted.

Other potential evidence the NMC failed to obtain included a psychological assessment of the nurse put before the Family Court “which was said to raise potential issues about her fitness to practise”.

“The NMC failed to recognise that such serious safeguarding matters directly impact on fitness to practise”

Mark Stobbs

Instead, during the hearing in London in May, the NMC maintained there was “no evidence” to support the charge and suggested the matter did not relate to the registrant’s “practice as a nurse”.

A lawyer representing the NMC “said that the NMC had considered the charge ‘very carefully’ and had decided to offer no evidence on it”, stated the High Court document.

The panel was then given the “wrong advice” by an NMC legal assessor, who suggested their only option was to dismiss the charge, noted Mrs Justice Laing.

“The NMC relied on its own minimal efforts to gather evidence in order to offer no evidence, when the facts clearly demanded an answer,” ruled the judge, who expressed her “unease at the superficial approach which the NMC took to gathering evidence”.

While what happened in the Family Court was clearly relevant to the NMC hearing, she found investigators “simply gave up” when told by the court service they would have to submit a formal application to obtain key papers, then “wrongly, decided it would be disproportionate to do more”.

“It does not seem to have considered whether it could get relevant and more direct evidence to support the allegation from other sources, such as from the various medical professionals who had dealt with the case,” the ruling stated.

“Such an approach does not in any way recognise the public interest in the thorough investigation of allegations of misconduct by registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence,” said Mrs Justice Laing.

“Such an approach does not in any way recognise the public interest and the need to maintain public confidence”

Elizabeth Laing

According to the ruling (see document attached below), investigators concluded they should not take further action because the matter “does not relate to patient care”.

“It is right to say that the allegation did not directly relate to patient care, but wrong to imply that the allegation, if made out, could have no bearing on patient care,” said Mrs Justice Laing.

“I note that the employer could very clearly see the implications for patient care, and that is why the employer dismissed the [nurse],” she stated.

She said it was clear the committee did not have the evidence to make an informed decision and criticised the investigators “complete failure” to describe the nature of the baby’s injuries and “acknowledge how serious they were”.

It was clear that committee members “had no idea of the number, or timing of the injuries or of their obvious seriousness” and did not appreciate they were obviously “non-accidental”.

“Nor had they been told that they could only have been inflicted by the second respondent [the nurse] or by her partner,” said the ruling. The judge concluded the NMC’s decision to offer no evidence and committee’s decision to endorse that approach and agree there was no case to answer, were “wrong in law”.

“They were decisions which no reasonable NMC or committee could have reached,” she said. “The only decision which the committee could lawfully have made was that there was a case to answer.”

Mrs Justice Laing told the NMC it must look at the case again and consider whether or not to gather more evidence to support the charge in question, before returning it to a committee.

“We have already made changes to our procedural guidance to reflect the judge’s findings”

NMC spokeswoman

The PSA said the case raised questions about the NMC’s approach to safeguarding, including that it did not identify “any regulatory concern” when it was referred to examiners in the first instance.

Mark Stobbs, PSA director of scrutiny and quality, said: “This case demonstrates why the authority’s oversight of regulators’ fitness to practise processes is vital.

“The NMC failed to recognise that such serious safeguarding matters directly impact on a registrant’s fitness to practise, whether the child is a patient or not,” he noted in a statement.

In response, the NMC said changes had already been made to its procedures in the light of the case. “This is clearly a very serious incident involving injury to a baby,” said an NMC spokeswoman.

“We’ll consider the judge’s decision carefully and we have already made changes to our procedural guidance to reflect the judge’s findings,” she added.

  • 4 Comments

Related files

Readers' comments (4)

  • As someone who has family subject to family court proceedings, where parents were held responsible for injuries caused by hospital staff during procedures witnessed by and challenged by myself at the time and staff were never taken to task over them as it was easier to accuse the parents. The NMC would not intervene when I complained to them, thinking they may encourage some transparency and duty of candour on the part of the hospital staff. There was an obvious effort to protect staff both by employers which served Social Services purpose to ensure adoption at any cost.
    As a result I left the NHS as it is not an organisation I want anything to do with as an employee.
    Knowing the staff responsible personally has destroyed my faith in the NHS as a whole. The financial toll on the family has been huge in appealing the convictions as a result. Vital evidence ignored to keep the status quo. The same trust has failed two more families in wrongly accusing parents of NAI. Both lost their children too, they were able to successfully appeal their convictions. We hope we will be as lucky. The personal cost to the families from the loss to adoption as a result of the staff mistakes is immaterial to the trust protecting staff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So we are paying increased fees to a regulatory body that doesn't think that a nurse who poses a risk to her own family bears investigation?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Incredibly unbelievable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This does not instill confidence in the processess and systems that are there to protect us all,- and yes at a continued increasing cost to us

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.