Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
When determining whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct the panel had regard to the standards set out in the code. The panel considered Nurse A’s actions to have fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a registered nurse, and that they amounted to breaches of the code.
The panel recognised that not every falling short of the standards reflected in the code necessarily amounted to misconduct. It took account of all the evidence before it and the circumstances of the case as a whole.
The panel was of the view that Nurse A’s failure to inform Patient A’s critical care outreach team and her admitted failure in not noting that the entry made was retrospective were not so serious so to amount to misconduct in and of themselves.
However, the panel was of the view that taken together with the other charges, these also amounted to misconduct. The panel found that Nurse A’s actions did fall seriously short of the conduct and standards expected of a nurse and amounted to misconduct.
Decision on impairment
The panel had regard to the reflective piece completed by Nurse A as well as multiple training certificates and numerous professional references submitted on her behalf when considering whether her misconduct had been remediated.
The panel noted that the professional references provided relate to Nurse A’s current nursing practice in an acute environment, similar to that of which the charges relate. The panel considered the references provided to attest positively to her nursing practice and her friendly and helpful character whilst working on busy wards.
Further, the panel considered Nurse A to have demonstrated remorse for her failings, and identified how your actions could have impacted upon her colleagues, patients and the perception of the nursing profession.
The panel finds that, although Nurse A‘s fitness to practise may have been impaired at the time of the incidents, given all of the above, her fitness to practise was not currently impaired.
In conclusion, the panel was of the view that Nurse A had been able to demonstrate that she is a safe practitioner and that the risk of repetition in her case is minimal. Therefore, a finding of current impairment on public protection grounds was not required.