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

Vasanta Suddock

Recent activity

Comments (41)

  • Comment on: NMC starts support service for those raising concerns about nurses

    Vasanta Suddock's comment 21 December, 2018 4:58 pm

    I MUST ALSO ADD:

    GMC annual report in 2016 confirmed “We are running pilots in each of the UK’s four countries of safeguards to reduce the risk of our procedures being used to disadvantage whistleblowers, a concern raised by Sir Anthony Hooper QC who was commissioned by the GMC to undertake an independent review of how the GMC deals with whistleblowing”. …..

  • Comment on: NMC starts support service for those raising concerns about nurses

    Vasanta Suddock's comment 21 December, 2018 4:53 pm

    Source of NMC referrals illustrates 73.33% of employer referrals has resulted in impairment, strike off or other action, whilst only 3.6% members of the public sees a similar result......

    The regulators (NMC/ GMC) mostly accept employer referrals but fail to
    ascertain as to whether the referred registrant had previously whistle-blown against the referring employer.

    In light of the recent PSA report, I would hope that genuine members of the public are listened to rather than regulators acting upon some vexatious employer referrals

  • Comment on: Corbyn challenges prime minister on student nurse bursary removal

    Vasanta Suddock's comment 25 October, 2018 5:45 pm

    Jeremy Corbyn is correct in questioning the PM upon his pledge to bring back the nursing bursary. The below figures illustrate why!!!!

    The NMC registration RETENTION FIGURES illustrates an alarming drop of an average means of 4,500 registrants between March 2016 - March 2017..............Please look on the below statistics: (NEVER BEEN KNOWN IN HISTORY TO DROP AS IT DID IN 2017)

    On 31 March 2017 there were 690,773 nurses and midwives on the register
    On 31 March 2016 there were 692,556 nurses and midwives on the register
    On 31 March 2015 there were 686,811 nurses and midwives on the register
    On 31 March 2014, there were 680,899 nurses and midwives on the register
    On 31 March 2013, there were 675,306 nurses and midwives on the register.
    On 31 March 2012, there were 671,668 nurses and midwives on the register.
    On 31 March 2011, there were 665,132 nurses and midwives on the register)

    UCAS FIGURES IN 2015 = 44,060
    UCAS FIGURES IN 2016 = 43,800 – Publication on alleged scrapping of nursing bursaries began.
    UCAS FIGURES IN 2017 = 33,810 - DoH officially confirmed scrapping of bursary on 01/08/17, which I originally thought that the UCAS drop had nothing to do with scrapping of the bursaries, I was wrong!!! As the threat of this was already published in 2016.

    BREXIT - 46 Nurses from EU countries registered with the NMC in April 2017, compared with 1,304 in July 2016, according to figures obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Health Foundation...........this still does not equate to the drop in figures in March 2017.

    It is transparent that the PM has no plans to reintroduce bursaries BUT merely reiterates how they are going to invest substantial sums into the Health Service. This answer is irrelevant to the question about bursaries.

    Will the Government reintroduce the nursing bursaries? YES OR NO?

  • Comment on: Nurses must accept concerns earlier to quicken FtP, says NMC chief

    Vasanta Suddock's comment 23 August, 2018 5:21 pm


    (1) - The NMC CEO alleges that the regulator spends £20m a year on FtP activities at the moment..... HMMM ???? I believe this figure was relating to 2009-2010.....The FtP NMC annual accounts reports 2015, 2016, 2017 confirms a key driver of an increase in expenditure related to Fitness to Practise to £66.4 million in 2016–2017 (£58 million in 2015–2016).................. I may be wrong but I cannot find any figures alleging “£20m at the moment” or since 2010..............It would seem that the Department of Health/NMC are more focused on financial expenditure rather than exploring innocence of the registrants.

    (2) - Ms Smith acknowledged that warnings could be issued by the regulator without agreement from the registrant..........BUT.......... then alleges that registrants would be able to have their case reviewed “on limited grounds” if they were issued with an undertaking, warning or advice. So the NMC are breaching Article 6 (right to a fair trial/hearing) & article 8 (reputation) of HRA 1998 by precluding the registrant to a full hearing. Yet again, the registrant inadvertently has to accept undertakings, warnings without any type of trial, am I correct? And innocent registrants are publicly berated, am I correct?

    (3) - So under the NMC Rules Order 2001 & 2004, there is no way of challenging such decisions at the Administrative High Courts which can be done if struck-off or served with an interim/suspension order.

    (4) - HOWEVER, I wonder if the NMC could be challenged via a Judicial review such as Johnson & Maggs v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 2140 (Admin) - “Because no action was taken by the NMC in respect of their registration, the usual right of statutory appeal was not open to the registrants. However, as the registrants were nevertheless left with findings of misconduct against them, they challenged the decision by way of judicial review. (Human Rights Act – Article 6 as it took 8 years)......Accordingly Mr Justice Leggatt could not accept that the evidence adduced by the Committee could support its findings of misconduct and therefore could not see how the Committee could reasonably have found the charges against the registrants proved.  The findings of misconduct against the registrants were therefore quashed”............Maggs & Johnson had 1 year to challenge this

    (5) JUST A THOUGHT WHICH COULD BE EXPLORED

  • Comment on: Cheshire baby murder suspect revealed as nurse Lucy Letby

    Vasanta Suddock's comment 5 July, 2018 8:38 pm

    I am suspicious about nurse Lucy Letby`s criminal investigations and alleged blame for these babies` deaths.... I just wonder if she witnessed unsafe care which caused these deaths and has recently aired her concerns to other colleagues?.............. I may be wrong but my GUT INSTINCT tells me she is innocent, as I am unable to grapple why Nurse Letby is to blame at this point???

    Why did the Trust fail on the following:

    (1) Staffing on the unit was 21% lower than the recommended safe levels in 2014/15
    (2) Pathologists failed to check toxicology, blood electrolytes, or blood sugar tests.
    (3) The hospital's reporting policy for unexplained neonatal deaths was inadequate.

View all comments