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 struck a child on the head after being struck herself?

  • 1 Comment

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

The panel decided that Nurse A’s fitness to practise was not impaired:

  • The panel had no doubt that Nurse A’s past misconduct, in which she put a patient at unwarranted risk of harm, brought the profession into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets of the profession. 
  • In deciding whether Nurse A was liable to act in these ways in the future, the panel gave considerable weight to her evidence, during which she was questioned about how she would handle the situation differently in the future.
  • Nurse A was able to provide compelling answers from which the panel has been able to conclude that she is a safe practitioner and that the risk of repetition was minimal.
  • Prior to this incident; Nurse A had a career that spanned 38 years without incident. Nurse A presented the panel with a number of documents, including impressive reflective statements, references, appraisals and thank you cards from former patients.
  • Nurse A gave the panel oral evidence, from which the panel was of the view that her remorse and insight are both clear.
  • Although she did not attend a face-to-face course, she studied an online course on challenging behaviours and provided a written document on what she learned; the panel was encouraged by this, particularly as she detailed how she put the learning into her daily practice.

Based on all of this information and evidence, the panel determined that:

  • Should Nurse A find herself in a similar situation again, she would be unlikely to repeat the misconduct.
  • Although her fitness to practise may have been impaired at the time of the incident, her fitness to practise was not currently impaired on the grounds of public protection.

The panel also carefully considered the public interest in this case. It appreciated that an initial reaction by a member of the public to hearing that a vulnerable child in a nurse’s care had been struck by that nurse in all probability would be that the public interest required that nurse to be found impaired. However, the panel took the view that a member of the public – knowing what the panel knows – could easily come to a different conclusion.

The panel considered that this isolated incident in a career spanning some 38 years is towards the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness.

Taking all these factors into account, the panel considers that this was one of those rare occasions when the public interest did not require a finding of impairment solely on a public interest basis.

In addition, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession would not be undermined by a finding of no impairment given the specific circumstances of the case and the lack of any subsequent fitness to practise issues.

Was this the right course of action?

Poll

Do you agree with the panel?

View poll results
  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Yes a reasonable example of good deductive reasoning which I say as a nurse behaviour therapist, former manager and community nurse specialist in managing challenging behaviours covering 40 years. Unfortunately the NMC has many examples where it has responded with alarming incompetence or dare I say it, corruption where the 'allegations' have followed the nurses complaints of individual or institutional abuses towards specific patients previously in their care. For example employing investigating solicitors to resurrect former employer allegations previously disproven as malicious, otherwise untrue and moreover dropped. This is immoral and demonstrates prosecution practices which any reasonable person would conclude is grossly unacceptable.

    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.

Related Jobs