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

Nurse handed 12-month ban after giving dialysis patient Lucozade


A nurse in Yorkshire has received a 12-month suspension from the Nursing and Midwifery Council after demonstrating a consistent lack of competence.

A fitness to practise panel proved 11 allegations of incompetence against Juleth McKenzie including giving a hypoglycaemic patient on dialysis oral lucozade instead of IV glucose.

The panel also established that the nurse did not know the difference between milligrams and micrograms, could not accurately calculate a patient’s heart rate and checked a patient’s temperature when she was required to check blood pressure.

The allegations dated back to between 2006 and 2007.

Ms McKenzie was working as a band 5 staff nurse at Bradford Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust, her first substantive post after qualifying in 2005 – although she had worked at the hospital as a bank nurse.

The allegations related to her performance on the renal unit and subsequently on Ward 18, an ear nose and throat unit.

The panel was told that Ms McKenzie had failed to pass the renal unit’s new starters programme after six months, when most completed it within three months, and concerns remained about her “ability to function as a registered nurse”. She was subsequently mentored and given support to develop her practice.

However, it was found she had previously been diagnosed with dyslexia and poor short term visual memory. She was subsequently redeployed to Ward 18 where the panel heard that her supervisors were “unaware of the nature of her previous problems”.

Despite being set objectives and given teaching sessions, concerns were identified regarding Ms McKenzie’s performance across a range of areas including communication, safe medicines administration and ability to remember what she had learnt.

Although Ms McKenzie had a good rapport with patients and tried to engage with the programme, the panel was told she continued to make “fundamental errors and was unable to address the concerns in her performance”.

From 1 July 2008, she was redeployed as a healthcare assistant but concerns continued to be expressed about her competency, and she left the hospital’s employment on 30 November 2008.

When considering what action to take the hearing panel noted several mitigating factors – firstly that Ms McKenzie was “evidently a caring nurse” who wanted to deliver good practice and that she had tried to engage with her development programme and her supervisors.

She was handed a year-long suspension order at the NMC hearing in November last year, which found her fitness to practise was “impaired by lack of competence”.

The panel was unable to strike her off because her registration had not been continuously suspended and/or subject to conditions of practice for a period of not less than two years preceding the date of the panel’s decision.

A spokesman for the foundation trust said: “The trust took appropriate action to safeguard patients. Ms McKenzie was managed in accordance with the trust’s capability procedures and was provided with extensive supervision and support.”

Ms McKenzie was not present at the hearing and it was noted she had not engaged with the NMC after April 2011.


Related files

Readers' comments (48)

  • grumpy

    Er - how did this nurse get through her training?!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I really do wonder -----how incompetent does one have to be to be removed from the register ?

    11 -12 separate charges of incompetence !

    This woman should never have been permitted to qualify --- serious questions should be asked about her School of Nursing and those qualified , practising nurses who happily signed her off!

    Seems there may be more incompetents hiding in the undergrowth --- Ms McKenzie was failed by them !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • did she have a maths test at interview?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How has this nurse only been given a 12 month ban? She should be required to fully train again (but properly this time!) or be struck off completely. An error between milligrams a micrograms could kill a patient.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How has this nurse only been given a 12 month ban? She should be required to fully train again (but properly this time!) or be struck off completely. An error between milligrams a micrograms could kill a patient.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    I read this one recently in the press.

    I think it said she was (my phrase) a 'returning to nursing nurse', and that she had undertaken a course that most nurses manage in 3 months, but she had not completed in 6 months. It also said, I think, that at least some of her colleagues knew she was a menace.

    1) a nurse who can't grasp the difference between milli and micro, should not even be allowed near an aspirin

    2) if some other people knew about her unsatisfactory competence level, then at least some people (can't tell who, because I don't know who said what to whom, and who apparently then didn't act appropriately) should be ashamed of themself/ves !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem with getting rid of incompetent nurses is its not obvious on day 1 when they start their employment. By the time red flags are showing you cant just sack them. They have to be offered re training and supervision, usually with competencies to pass and this can take a while. You have to gather evidence of their incompetence and then there has to be an incident that warrants suspension and referral to the NMC. Where they then wait about 4 years for the case to be heard.
    Otherwise HR find themselves with an unfair dismissal case. Its frustrating as hell to work along side colleagues who everyone knows does not have the ability required, but you have to wait for the wheels to turn on the process of getting them out.
    The above only happens if you have a manager who is pro active and not one who bury's there heads in the sand and ignores pleas from colleagues to take action.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is the NMC thinking of??? This person should permanently be removed from the register. How clear can it be? This person is dangerous and patients lives are at risk here!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Anonymous | 8-Jan-2013 11:54 am

    That isn't 'easy to swallow' if you come from the perspective of the patients who might be harmed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    the continual support of 'incompetence' places everyone in danger including the staff they work with. We had one who was a liability to work with. In the end a patient died but she still managed remain in post despite everyone's concerns and then go on from doing her RMN to do her RGN, get put back in her placements on the RGN course and still hang in there.

    I think a point has to be reached for everyones sake where it is acknowledged that some are unteachable egardless of input.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results per page

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.