Find out how the NMC panel acted in this case. Not yet read the case? Read the charge and background here
The panel considered this case very carefully and decided to make a conditions of practice order for a period of 12 months.
Having found their fitness to practise currently impaired, the panel went on to consider what sanction, if any, it should impose in this case.
The panel has borne in mind that any sanction imposed must be appropriate and proportionate and, although not intended to be punitive in its effect, may have such consequences.
The panel took into account the following aggravating features:
- Actual harm to Resident B;
- Potential for serious risk of harm;
- Resident B was a particularly vulnerable patient, who had a lifelong disability and was receiving end-of-life care;
- Lack of insight, which does not reflect the seriousness of their actions.
The panel also took into account the following mitigating features:
- Early admission with the local investigation;
- Admission of misconduct and current impairment with the NMC;
- Remorse;
- Developing insight;
- Single incident on one shift.
The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that this would have been inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case.
It then considered the imposition of a caution order but again determined that would not have been appropriate in the circumstances.
The panel next considered whether placing conditions of practice on Nurse A’s registration would have been 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 did consider if a suspension order was appropriate in this case. It was of the view that in relation to the seriousness of the incident a suspension order could be warranted, however, concluded that by creating a tight and measurable conditions of practice order the public would be protected and it would be their responsibility to meet these conditions.
The panel was of the view that imposing a striking-off order would have been disproportionate.
The panel determined that that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was that of a conditions of practice order.
The conditions for the interim order would be the same as those detailed in the substantive order for a period of 18 months due to months to cover the 28-day appeal period and any period of appeal.