Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
The panel was impressed by a large number of references and testimonials from healthcare professionals who worked with Nurse A both in the past and currently, who are aware of these allegations.
A number of other staff nurses and lead support workers at the hospital described Nurse A in a similar light. In particular, the hospital team leader described him as being a valuable member of the nursing team with no concerns in relation to his clinical conduct.
Nurse A’s reflective account of both incidents was of a high quality, detailed and demonstrated a high level of insight into his errors of judgement. His training and further reading since the incident included relevant topics including consent, mental capacity, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty and record keeping.
For these reasons, the panel considered that Nurse A’s insight, reflection, remorse and retraining, meant that he doesn’t now put patients at unwarranted risk of harm. Any risk to the public is remote.
The panel was of the view that the incidents that led to the charges – although serious – can be distinguished by the fact that they were not motivated by malice, were not for gain, and did not arise from an uncaring attitude.Rather they were motivated by misguided actions, which in the case of Resident A were intended to respect her wishes with regard to emergency treatment, and in the case of Resident B, were to persuade him to take the medication, which if he had not, could have caused him even greater distress.
Determination on sanction
Having determined that Nurse A was not currently impaired on the grounds of public protection the panel moved on to consider whether nevertheless there was a wider public interest consideration in relation to current impairment.
Public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as its regulator, is enhanced by the fact that Nurse A successfully addressed and remediated his misconduct during the earlier stages of your case and prior to the substantive hearing.
The panel was of the view that in all the circumstances of this case, Nurse A’s fitness to practice was also not impaired on wider public interest grounds. In the panel’s view this would not undermine public confidence in the profession or in the NMC as its regulator.
Do you agree with the panel?