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

Final panel decision: What should happen to a 
nurse who incorrectly submitted 
a revalidation application?

  • 1 Comment

Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here 

Decision on direction

The panel next considered what action, if any, to take. Under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order (2001) (“the Order”), the panel may make an order that the registrar remove or amend the entry. The panel also noted the guidance which states that it may decide to take no action.

The panel considered that to take no action in the circumstances of this case would be inappropriate as it had previously found that Nurse A’s entry on to the NMC register was incorrectly made. The panel also considered that an amendment to the entry would be inappropriate in this case, because this was not merely a typographical or insignificant error.

In all the circumstances, the panel decided that the only appropriate order was to direct the registrar to remove Nurse A’s incorrect entry from the register.

Determination on Interim Order:

The panel has considered the submissions made by the NMC that an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months should be made on the grounds of public protection and public interest  to cover the appeal period. He submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if Nurse A were allowed to practise without restriction and that there is a strong public interest in maintaining the integrity of the register.

Acting on behalf of Nurse A, Mr B submitted that there were no public protection issues and no risk of harm in her case. He submitted that there was a high bar for an interim suspension order to be imposed on public interest grounds alone and that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would take no issue in these circumstances if an interim order was not imposed.

The panel, in balancing the public interest against Nurse A’s interest, concluded that an interim order was not necessary or proportionate. The panel considered that the imposition of an interim order would be disproportionate in the particular circumstances of Nurse A’s case.

No element of dishonesty was found, and no concerns were been raised in respect of Nurse A’s clinical practice. The panel also noted that she engaged with her regulator, she had had a lengthy unblemished nursing career and was of good character.

Click here for more on NMC revalidation



  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • In what way is this protecting the public? There's no evidence of mal intent and no indication of concerns about the nurses practice

    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.