Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
The panel decided to make a suspension order for six months.
The panel considered the aggravating and mitigating features of the case:
- Mistreatment of vulnerable residents who lacked capacity;
- Nurse A was in a position of managerial authority at the time of the events;
- Nurse A’s dishonesty to the regulator;
- Nurse A’s limited insight into how their behaviour impacted residents, colleagues and the nursing profession;
- Nurse A made partial admissions to some of the charges, and expressed general remorse for their misconduct;
- The relevant training undertaken by Nurse A;
- Nurse A’s personal circumstances at the time of the events.
The panel concluded that taking no action would be inappropriate.
The panel considered that because of Nurse A’s misconduct, a caution order would be inappropriate in view of the potential risk to patients in this case.
The panel considered that Nurse A’s lack of insight indicated a potential attitudinal problem. The panel also considered that Nurse A’s dishonesty to the regulator could not be addressed by conditions of practice.
The panel considered that a suspension order would be sufficient.
Taking account of all the information before it, the panel concluded that a striking-off order would be disproportionate.
The panel determined that a suspension order for a period of six months was appropriate in this case to mark the seriousness of the misconduct.
Decision on interim order
The panel was satisfied that an interim suspension order was necessary for the protection of the public and was in the public interest. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order.
The period of this order was for 18 months.