Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
The NMC’s representative said that to address the public protection and the public interest concerns identified, the panel should consider the imposition of a conditions of practice order.
Nurse A’s representative submitted that the panel should impose a caution order, which would be sufficient to mark the nature of the misconduct identified, and to address the public protection and public interest concerns the panel has identified.
Having found their fitness to practise impaired, the panel went on to consider what sanction, if any, it should impose in this case.
The panel took into account the following aggravating features:
- Nurse A’s insight into their misconduct and its effects is lacking in depth;
- Conduct which put a patient at risk of suffering harm.
The panel also took into account that Nurse A had kept up to date in their area of practice.
The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would be inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case, and would not protect the public.
It then considered the imposition of a caution order but again determined that this would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
The panel next considered whether placing conditions of practice on their registration would be a sufficient and appropriate response. The panel 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 to impose a suspension order or a striking-off order would be disproportionate and would not be a reasonable response.
Balancing all these factors, the panel determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is that of a conditions of practice order.
The panel decided to make a conditions of practice order for a period of nine months with a review.
