Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
The panel considered that any sanction imposed must be appropriate and proportionate and that, although a sanction is not intended to be punitive in its effect, it may have such consequences.
The panel started by considering the aggravating and mitigating features, which could be identified in this case. It took into account the following aggravating features:
- Nurse A’s actions took place in the context of a residential setting where the residents were vulnerable and where some were not able to articulate responses;
- The failings involved a lack of dignity, respect and professionalism towards both patients and colleagues;
- As the senior member of staff on duty, they were responsible for the supervision of staff and the care of patients during their shift;
- There was a pattern of misconduct involving several separate occurrences over an unspecified period of time, and the failings were therefore attitudinal in nature;
- There was an absence of evidence of remorse, reflection, insight or remediation;
- The incidents involved a risk of psychological and/or physical harm to patients.
The panel also took into account the following mitigating features:
- Nurse A demonstrated some engagement with both the local investigation and these regulatory proceedings;
- They had made some admissions in both the local and regulatory proceedings, albeit that these admissions were to the facts and did not demonstrate any significant insight into the underlying inappropriateness of the conduct involved;
- There were no previous regulatory concerns;
- There were positive comments from Witness 2 and Witness 4 in relation to their character, professionalism and relationship with at least some of their patients and colleagues.
The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would be inappropriate in this case.
The panel considered that it would have been an inappropriate and insufficient response to impose a caution order in this case.
As with a caution order, the panel considered that such an order would not have been adequate to protect the public and would not be an appropriate or sufficient response.
It followed that the panel considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to address the public interest considerations. It also considered that a period of suspension would operate to protect the public while it was in force.
In all the circumstances the panel considered that it would be disproportionate and unnecessarily punitive to impose a striking-off order in this case at this stage.
The panel considered that it was necessary to impose an interim suspension order. It considered that the appropriate duration of the interim suspension order was for a period of 18 months, because of the length of time likely to be required for any appeal, if brought, to be determined or otherwise finally disposed of.
