Final panel decision: What should happen to a nurse who did not escalate concerns about two vulnerable patients? | Nursing Times

The panel acknowledged the NMC sanction bid of a conditions of practice order, but was not bound by such a bid, and has exercised its independent judgement. The panel did not identify any aggravating factors in this case.

The panel identified several mitigating factors. First, Nurse A made partial admissions to the charges at an early stage.

Second, Nurse A said in their written response to the regulatory concerns sent to the NMC that there were financial pressures and reduced staffing at the time of the failings, which were contributory factors. The panel noted this was also referred to in witness evidence.

The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would be inappropriate.

Next, the panel determined that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to impose a caution order.

The panel next determined that it would be possible to formulate appropriate and practical conditions, which would address the failings highlighted in this case. The panel was of the view that it was in the public interest that, with appropriate safeguards, Nurse A should be able to practice as a nurse.

The panel was of the view that to impose a suspension order or a striking off order would have been wholly disproportionate. The panel concluded that a conditions of practice order would mark the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession, and would send to the public and the profession a clear message about the standards of practice required of a registered nurse. The period of this order was for 12 months.

The panel decided to impose an interim conditions of practice order for the same reasons as it imposed the substantive order and to do so for a period of 18 months. That concludes this determination.