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

What should happen to a 
nurse who incorrectly submitted 
a revalidation application?


This month, we are focusing on a case heard by the NMC’s investigating 
committee (IC), rather than a fitness to practise panel. The IC can decide whether 
to remove or amend a registrant’s place on the register

you are the panel

you are the panel

The charge

That on 1 May 2016, Nurse A submitted an online revalidation application and indicated that:

She had a reflective discussion with a colleague when she had not;
She had received confirmation from colleague A on 26 April 
2016 when she had not and thereby an entry in her name on the register of 
the NMC was fraudulently procured/incorrectly made.

The background

The NMC was alerted that Nurse A’s registration was fraudulently procured or incorrectly made. The NMC received a referral from Colleague A, a practice nurse manager at a Medical Partnership.

Colleague A stated that Nurse A revalidated by using her details as the confirmer when she had not confirmed their practice or had the required reflective discussion.

Based on the information provided in her application, she indicated that she had a reflective discussion in 2016 and her practice was confirmed by Colleague A, who they had the discussion with.

At the hearing

Nurse A admitted all the charges so the facts in the charges were found proved. Nurse A admitted that her entry on the register was incorrectly made as a result of the incorrect information provided.

However, she denied that she had fraudulently procured her entry on the NMC’s register and that she had knowingly sought to mislead the NMC by providing incorrect information.

The panel considered evidence from one witness on behalf of the NMC – Colleague A, who informed the panel that the meeting had initially been set for an appraisal, which had been cancelled but instead became a meeting in which the revalidation process was discussed.

Colleague A stated that Nurse A did not have the reflective discussion as suggested nor did she give the relevant confirmation at that meeting.

Nurse A explained to the panel that she believed she had a reflective discussion with Colleague A at the meeting in 2016 and that she had received confirmation from Colleague A on that date.

The panel heard evidence that later in 2016, she texted Colleague A to inform her that she had successfully revalidated to which Colleague A replied “Great news who was your confirmer in the end?”

Nurse A told 
the panel that it was then 
she realised that there was something wrong as she believed that Colleague A was her confirmer. Nurse A then apologised to Colleague A and sought advice from the Royal College of Nursing and Ms 2, a personal development and lead nurse in the clinical commissioning group.

The panel noted that Nurse A had been the first person to undergo the revalidation process in her organisation, so there was no one at the time that had gone through the process and with whom she could have discussed it.

The panel accepted her account that she was mistaken and genuinely believed that she had the reflective discussion with Colleague A at the meeting in 2016 – the date she had recorded on her form as the date of the reflective discussion.

It also accepted that she believed that she had received confirmation that same day.

The panel accepted Nurse A’s explanation that she found the revalidation process daunting and overwhelming.

The panel found that she had not given due care and consideration to the revalidation process. The panel concluded that Nurse A’s entry on the register was incorrectly made but not fraudulent.  

Results of the investigating committee

The invesigating committee listens to the facts of the case in the same way that an FTP panel does for FTP cases.

There is no impairment stage – the process is simply that the panel have to decide the facts (whether the entry on the register was made incorrectly and/or fraudulently) and then decide whether to make an order that the registrar remove or amend the registrant’s entry.

There are no sanctions. If they decide to correct the entry then the person will remain on the register but if they remove them they will no longer be on the register but can reapply for registration at any point.

Removal is not the same as being struck off as if you are struck off, you have to either successfully appeal or apply for restoration, which you can only do after five years have passed. You would have to appear again in front of a panel who would decide whether or not you are able to be restored.

Share what you believe is the right action for the NMC panel to take below and then find out what they decided: Final panel decision and reasons

More on NMC revalidation


Readers' comments (4)

  • removal

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It seems to have been a genuine error with no malicious intent and the nurse took steps to rectify it as soon as she realised there was a problem.

    She should stay on the register.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The nurse should be supported to complete the revalidation process, so that she can stay on the register.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It appears to be a genuine error..we are suppose to be in a caring profession .when she realised the mistake she attempted to amend it . That to me equals honesty . The first commenter who stated "removal". I'd hate to have you as my nurse. No sympathy with you

    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.