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

Nurses must accept concerns earlier to quicken FtP, says NMC chief


New legislation changes, designed to speed up fitness-to-practise cases, will only succeed if nurses and midwives accept concerns about their conduct and engage with new rules early on, the head of the regulator has warned.

The changes, which come into force today, include a controversial new measure that will allow the Nursing and Midwifery Council to issue public warnings to registrants who have breached professional standards.

Other new options available to the regulator include agreeing restrictions of practice with registrants – known as undertakings – or, for the least severe cases, issuing private advice to nurses and midwives.

“They [registrants] have to acknowledge there are ongoing issues, there has to be acceptance. That is a very important part of this”

Jackie Smith 

The reforms, brought in under a Section 60 order, will enable case examiners to resolve issues earlier on in the FtP process and will mean the NMC only has to take the most serious cases through to a full hearing.

But the changes will only achieve their aim of speeding up FtP if registrants are willing to accept problems and agree to improve their practice from the outset, said NMC chief executive and registrar Jackie Smith.

She told Nursing Times this was particularly relevant for undertakings – public formal binding agreements between the regulator and the registrant that set conditions of practice for a period of time, such as training or working under supervision.

This will occur where the registrant poses a low-level risk to patients and there is, therefore, a “case to answer”, she said.

“They [registrants] have to acknowledge there are ongoing issues, there has to be acceptance. That is a very important part of this,” she told Nursing Times.

“A warning can be given where they [registrants] don’t necessarily accept the concerns, but it will be for 12 months”

Jackie Smith

However, Ms Smith acknowledged that warnings could be issued by the regulator without agreement from the registrant - though the nurse would have to have accepted there was a concern about their practice.

Warnings will stay on the registrant’s public record for 12 months and will be given out when there are serious concerns about past conduct, but they are thought to no longer present a risk to the public – meaning there is “no case to answer”.

Currently, if an FtP panel finds there is “no case to answer”, due to the individual no longer posing a risk to patients, there is no public mark on their registration.

Concerns have been raised in recent months that the new system may result in “gratuitous” use of warnings, and that they may disadvantage staff in future employment.

Nursing Times asked Ms Smith whether the new system of warnings represented a tightening of the rules by the regulator.

“I don’t see it as a tightening of rules… it is the regulator putting down a marker, because this is about confidence in the profession, maintaining standards, and the public having that assurance that as a regulator we are maintaining those standards.

“You can go to a full hearing and be given a caution – a warning is similar, but it will be for 12 months. Cautions can last up to five years right now,” said Ms Smith.

She acknowledged that some unions had concerns about the use of warnings, which she expected to be “controversial”, and said there would be a “healthy debate” during the first case.

Jackie Smith

Jackie Smith

Jackie Smith

The NMC later confirmed to Nursing Times that registrants would be able to have their case reviewed “on limited grounds” if they were issued with an undertaking, warning or advice.

“As a regulator, we want registrants to remediate where they can without going to a hearing because there is that agreement, acknowledgment and acceptance there is a concern,” she said.

“And our desire is to really reduce the number of hearings we have,” said Ms Smith, noting the doctors’ regulator the General Medical Council had been operating under the same legislation for over a decade.

Department of Health estimates show the NMC is expected to save around £60m over the next decade due to the legislation changes, which also include a series of other reforms, including relating to midwifery supervision – largely due to fewer costly hearings.

But the NMC chief executive was unable to say how quickly money could be saved and whether that estimation was correct. She noted the regulator spends £20m a year on FtP activities at the moment.

“This is a new process, there are going to be teething problems and people anxious, not sure what it means,” she said. “I do not expect in the first six months to see a radical shift in the number of hearings. It will take longer than that.” 


Readers' comments (18)

  • This is atrocious.
    The NMC is deliberately misused and if the NMC does not know it they should.
    So we are all now going to be vulnerable to warnings without any necessity of proof of the original accusations.
    Talk of guilty before being proved innocent. In fact they seem to be saying that if you fight your case you must be guilty and if you you don't fight your case you must be guilty.
    This demonstrates what many nurses are now saying and realise.
    The NMC is a persecutory body. Talk about witch trials. We may as well all admit to being witches (or warlocks if your male) and have done with hearings completely

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In my case where an employer made a vindictive referral the NMC believed every word they said about me. Of course I was guilty, I had upset the NMC by telling them so.
    I took my case to appeal at the High Court before an independent, evenhanded, impartial judge who used the Law to make a judgement in my favour.
    What about others in my position who were being forced to accept these legally binding judgements against them without being able to fight them. This may be due to personal/financial circumstances.
    The NMC seem to be putting themselves beyond the law where they can slander or libel nurses without the nurses having any redress.
    Nurses should not accept the NMC authority, the NMC is not the even handed arbiter of justice. Go to the High Court with a judge deciding.
    This process is not as frightening as it first appears & allows the RN/RM to take control of the situation, it also removes stress.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is very worrying.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So all a complainant has to say is that a nurse has breached professional standards and this will be automatically accepted and the nurse will have to accept a warning?

    All us nurses should cease paying our fees to this atrocious organisation that is run by a bunch of second rate highly paid fools. No on second thoughts we are the fools

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a non nurse, Ms Smith doesn't have to worry about it, does she? Nor does she have to work in the current climate of blame, whistleblowing, reporting etc. If a patient doesn't like an outcome, they can blame the nurse; if a relative doesn't like an outcome, they can blame the nurse; if a benefit claimant doesn't get their benefit, they can blame the nurse assessor. And if the article is correct, the nurse must accept remediation or face a hearing. Nowhere in the article did I see the word evidence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • what happened to the premise innocent until proven guilty, when there is an incident the nurse is advised to admit fault, show remorse and accept responsibility , even when it is not their responsibility and if they try to defend themselves they are then viewed as quilty but lacking in remorse and therefore a risk, no win no win

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bullying by any other name?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In the eyes of the NMC its guilty and you have to prove that you're innocent! But wait..... you cannot do that either because you have to state that you're guilty anyway. Sad day for nursing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You mean ANOTHER sad day for nursing.

    Our profession is being destroyed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As if we don't already live in fear of the NMC! Things really can't get any worse! As others have said, whatever happened to a fair hearing with EVIDENCE?! If I didn't have a mortgage I could quite happily walk away from nursing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

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.