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

Proposed deadline for FtP responses is 'unfair', claim unions


Plans to give nurses and midwives less than a month to respond to fitness to practise allegations have been branded as unfair by unions.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council aims to investigate and establish whether registrants have a case to answer within a year in 90% of cases. The registrant is then invited to respond.

However, the NMC wants to introduce a deadline for responses under a raft of proposals designed to speed up the fitness to practise process and help it get on top of a backlog of more than 4,000 open cases.

It plans to give registrants just 28 days to indicate whether they admit any of the facts alleged against them. If they miss the deadline they could be deemed to have admitted the allegations.

Unison, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives have all strongly rejected the proposal.

In a written response to a consultation on the NMC’s plans, lawyers for the RCM pointed out that during the 28 days the registrant would have to “seek opinions, review evidence and obtain legal analysis…. to prepare a full response case”.

The college warned this did not appear “fair” and could disadvantage registrants. It proposed the deadline should be at least 42 days.

Lawyers for Unison accused the NMC of seeking to speed up the process “at the expense of the registrant’s preparation time rather than its own”.

The RCN described the 28 day deadline as “unrealistic”. It said an “unduly short timeframe” would leave many registrants unable to respond in a “constructive way”.

The NMC had argued that unions should begin preparing cases on behalf of their members as soon as an allegation was first made – before it had been decided whether there was a case to answer.

Unions claimed this would be a waste of their resources, as many cases end up not being taken forward.

Unions have also rejected proposals that the individual or organisation that referred the registrant should be allowed to address the fitness to practise panel.

In addition, the NMC has proposed introducing the option of “consensual disposal”, whereby a nurse or midwife could choose to avoid a full public hearing if they admitted their fitness to practise was impaired. It is already available to doctors from their regulator the General Medical Council.

Unions said they welcomed the proposal – as long as a registrant was not made to feel under pressure from the NMC to accept consensual disposal.

Unison lawyers said: “The NMC should not underestimate the level of influence it has on registrants, and the fear and anxiety the fitness to practise process can have on them.”


Readers' comments (3)

  • Damn cheek, 28 days - you could be off sick, on holiday, there could be the usual red-tape delays, your union rep could be away, documents could get 'lost'.

    No-one could prepare a case in that amount of time.

    Consensual disposal - crafty, yes, let's stress the nurse out so much that she ends up admitting to something she didn't do - easily done under duress.

    The only thing I would agree on is that that the referrer be allowed to address the panel - in front of the accused - that way any false, malicious and trumped-up allegations would soon be discovered and the referrer would be the one who is found guilty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • None of the other healthcare regulators and their professions have a problem with 28 days - they have been doing it for years. So why does it come down to the nursing reps yet again saying something is not feasable. Perhaps the RCN etc should start looking at how organisations such as MDU, DDU, MPS, DPL, MDDUS etc operate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The accusers do have to give there evidence in front of the person they have lied about, and indeed when one of the persons who lied about me, said she couldnt remember to every question she was asked. and other more senior liars became very defensive, and aggressive in defense of there actions. I do agree 28 days is too short a time, and it's for the NMC to prove the case against the Respondent. Once you get to this stage, you are referred to a solicitor and there is no way this process would be complete and they would have to interview the respondent and also review the enormous amount of paperwork that would have accumilated up to that stage. people's careers and livelyhoods, and a heck of a lot of heartache for the accused and families is a fundimental concern and consideration here. if the NMC can act this quick now why did it take my case 4 years to get to me, being exonerated and a no case to answer verdict?

    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.