Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 6 9 ... · 6/9/2017 · Legal Assessor:...

of 24

Conduct and Competence Committee

Substantive Hearing

6 – 9 June 2017

Nursing and Midwifery Council, Regus Belfast, Forsyth House, Cromac Square, Belfast,

BT2 8LA

Name of Registrant Nurse: Natalie Ann Stilges-Stevenson

NMC PIN: 97B0202S Part(s) of the register: RNA, Registered Nurse (sub part 1) Adult – 21 February 2000 Area of Registered Address: Northern Ireland Type of Case: Misconduct Panel Members: Nigel Hallam (Chair – Lay member) Catherine Hinton (Registrant member) Linda Nixon (Lay member) Legal Assessor: Michael Ranaghan Panel Secretary: Zainab Mohamed Mrs Stilges-Stevenson: Present and represented by Katrina Gray of

BLM Solicitors Nursing and Midwifery Council: Represented by Francis O’Toole, Counsel,

instructed by the NMC Regulatory Legal Team Facts proved: 1 in its entirety and 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and

2(g) in so far as it relates to 2(a) – (d) by way of admission

Facts not proved: 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) in so far as it relates to 2(e)

and (f) Fitness to Practise: Impaired Sanction: Caution order – 5 years

Interim Order: N/A

of 24

Details of charges (as amended):

That you, a registered nurse:

1) On 6 June 2015;

a. Took two boxes of Zopiclone from ward stocks, without permission or a

clinically justified reason; (Proved by way of admission)

b. Gave two boxes of Zopiclone to a non-clinical colleague; (Proved by way

of admission)

c. Took four boxes of Co-codamol from ward stocks, without permission or a


d. Gave four boxes of Co-codamol to a non-clinical colleague; (Proved by

way of admission)

e. Your actions in 1.a. – 1.d. above were dishonest, in that you used your

position as a nurse to access medication stocks in order to supply your

colleague with ward medication which you knew was/believed to be for his

personal use. (Proved by way of admission)

2) On occasion(s), in the six months prior to 6 June 2015;

a. Took Zopiclone medication from ward stocks, without permission or a


b. Gave Zopiclone to a non-clinical colleague; (Proved by way of

admission)

c. Took Co-codamol medication from ward stocks, without permission or a


d. Gave Co-codamol to a non-clinical colleague; (Proved by way of

admission)

e. Took Lignocaine patches medication from ward stocks, without permission

or a clinically justified reason;

f. Gave Lignocaine patches to a non-clinical colleague;

g. Your actions in 2.a. – 2.f. above were dishonest, in that you used your


colleague with ward medication which you knew was/ believed to be for

his personal use.

of 24

And, in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your

misconduct.

of 24

Decision and reasons on application to amend the charges

The panel heard an application made by Mr O’Toole, on behalf of the NMC, to correct

the spelling of “co-codamol” in the relevant charges. He submitted that it was an

administrative error. Thus, Mr O’Toole submitted that no injustice would be caused to

you and invited the panel to accept the amendment.

Ms Gray, on your behalf, did not object to the proposed amendments.

The panel was mindful of Rule 28 of the Rules which states:

28 (1) At any stage before making its findings of fact …

(i) … the Conduct and Competence Committee, may amend

(a) the charge set out in the notice of hearing …

unless, having regard to the merits of the case and the fairness of the

proceedings, the required amendment cannot be made without injustice.

The panel accepted the amendments were only to correct a spelling mistake and

typographical error in the charges. The panel was of the view that such amendments,

as applied for, were in the interest of justice. The panel was satisfied that there would

be no prejudice to you or injustice caused to either party by the proposed amendments

being allowed, as both parties had agreed to it. It was therefore appropriate to allow the

amendment, as applied for, to ensure accuracy.

of 24

Admissions

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Gray informed the panel that you admitted the facts in

charge 1 in its entirety and the facts in charges 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). She also

informed the panel that you admit charge 2(g) in so far as it relates to charges 2(a) –

(d). Further, Ms Gray informed the panel that you accept that your fitness to practise is

currently impaired in relation to the admitted charges.

The panel found the facts in charges 1(in its entirety), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(g) in so

far as it relates to 2(a) – (d) all proved by way of your admissions.

Background

The NMC received a referral from Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust”)

where you had been employed as a Band 5 staff nurse for 16 years before your

dismissal.

The alleged incident took place at the Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast where you were

working on the Vascular ward (“the Ward”).

Following concerns that there was a depletion of the level of codeine phosphate in the

Ward during April 2015, it was decided that CCTV would be installed in the clean utility

room where medication was stored. The CCTV was installed in May 2015 and footage

from 6 June 2015 shows you misappropriating Class B&C medication from the ward

medication cupboard and supplying a nursing auxiliary with the medication.

An Investigation Meeting was held on 25 June 2015 which you attended and were

represented by a Royal College of Nursing (“RCN”) representative. At the Investigation

Meeting you admitted that on occasion you would take two Paracetamol tablets for

headaches or period pain and would also on occasion supply other staff with

Paracetamol or Co-codamol for pain. You also confirmed that you were on duty on 6

June 2015 and admitted that whilst in the clean utility room with a nursing auxiliary, you

took two boxes of Zopiclone (sleeping tablets) and four boxes of Co-codamol and gave

of 24

it to the nursing auxiliary. Further, you admitted that you had been supplying Co-

codamol and Zopiclone to this nursing auxiliary for a period of approximately 6 months

prior to June 2015 and suggested that you would normally give strips rather than boxes.

It is further alleged that you admitted to taking and supplying lignocaine patches

although you later disputed this stating that you had never taken and given lignocaine

patches to your colleague.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) investigated the matter and reported it

to the Public Prosecution Service.

Following a disciplinary hearing you were dismissed.

of 24

Decision on the findings on facts and reasons

In reaching its decisions on the facts, the panel considered all the evidence presented in

this case together with the submissions made by Mr O’Toole, on behalf of the NMC and

those made by Ms Gray, on your behalf.

The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

The panel was aware that the burden of proof rests with the NMC, and that the standard

of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. This means that the

facts will be proved if the panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the

incidents occurred as alleged.

The panel heard oral evidence from three witnesses called on behalf of the NMC, who

at the time of these events were employed at the Trust in the following capacity:

Ms 1, Clinical Coordinator for the Vascular Burns Plastics & the Abdominal Aortic

Screening Programme

Ms 2, Lead Pharmacist for controlled drugs

Ms 3, Service Manager

The panel found Ms 1 to be an honest, credible and a fair witness. She was balanced

and objective. The panel found that she was straightforward in her answers and clearly

stated what she could recall and what she could not recall.

The panel found Ms 2 to be a credible and reliable witness. The panel did however find

that there was some inconsistency in her evidence with regard to the interpretation of

any reference to Lignocaine and her recall of the preparation of the notes of the

Investigation Meeting. The panel considered that the inconsistencies did not undermine

her credibility as she did her best to assist the panel despite the passage of time.

The panel found Ms 3 to be defensive and guarded. Her evidence was subjective and in

part inconsistent. In her oral evidence, Ms 3 mentioned that she, Ms 1 and Ms 2 had a

discussion about their notes immediately after the meeting after returning to the room

having made coffee with Ms 1 and Ms 2. However, neither Ms 1 nor Ms 2 mentioned

having this discussion despite being specifically asked about how they agreed the

of 24

minutes. The panel had concerns about the note taking procedure used at the

Investigation Meeting and the written notes produced by Ms 3. In particular, the panel

was concerned with her interpretation of the handwritten notes and it was therefore

unable to place much weight on the typed Investigation Meeting notes. The panel also

found that Ms 3 was somewhat judgemental in her oral and written evidence. She was

reluctant to make concessions when it was appropriate to do so and did not want to give

credit to you even with regard to the early admissions you had made in the Investigation

Meeting. The panel also found that Ms 3’s evidence at times was contradictory and

inconsistent which undermined her credibility. For these reasons, the panel had some

reservation and was unable to fully rely on her evidence.

The panel also heard oral evidence from you. The panel found you to be a credible

witness. It considered that you were forthcoming and had admitted to having taken

some tablets and given them to a colleague relatively early in the Investigation Meeting.

When you were unable to recall certain matters you were honest and made it clear. The

panel found that you were consistent throughout your evidence in relation to the

disputed particulars.

At the outset of the hearing you admitted the facts in relation to charges 1(in its

entirety), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(g) in so far as it relates to 2(a) – (d). The panel

therefore found those charges proved by way of your admissions.

The panel then went on to consider the remaining charges.

The panel considered each charge and made the following findings:

That you, a registered nurse:

Charges 2 (e) and (f)


e. Took Lignocaine patches medication from ward stocks, without permission

or a clinically justified reason;

f. Gave Lignocaine patches to a non-clinical colleague;

These charges are found NOT proved.

of 24

In reaching this decision, the panel took into account all the written and oral evidence, in

particular your oral evidence and that of Ms 1, Ms 2 and Ms 3.

The panel had sight of the handwritten notes of Ms 1, Ms 2 and Ms 3 dated 25 June

2015. It also had sight of the Investigation Meeting notes.

The panel noted that the only contemporaneous evidence of Lignocaine being

mentioned during the Investigation Meeting was in the handwritten notes of Ms 2 and

Ms 3. Ms 2 recorded the following: “earlier you said strip a tablets – lidocaine [sic]” and

Ms 3 recorded the following: “pain relief + lignocaine patches”. Ms 1 made no mention

of Lignocaine in her notes.

The only evidence in support of this charge is an alleged admission by you at the

Investigation meeting which you have consistently disputed from when you first received

a copy of the typed Investigation Meeting notes. Further, the panel noted the following

statement written by you on the meeting notes which you signed and dated 15

September 2015:

“re question 45: I do not recall saying about Lignocaine as I would never have

given these to [the nursing auxiliary].”

The panel noted that unlike the Co-codamol and Zopiclone medication, there was no

CCTV footage of you taking Lignocaine patches nor was there any other evidence to

support this allegation.

Further, the panel noted that Ms 1 had no recollection of you mentioning Lignocaine. In

addition, during Ms 2’s oral evidence, when questioned about this matter and the

possible interpretations of her note about Lignocaine, Ms 2 could only recall that it was

part of your explanation of what may have occurred and accepted that it was open to

interpretation. The panel further noted paragraph 6 of Ms 3’s witness statement which

stated as follows: “Natalie’s reference to Lignocaine suggests to me a possibility that

she may in the past have taken Lignocaine from the ward cupboard and provided it to

this colleague.” The panel found that this reference in paragraph 6 of Ms 3’s statement

amounts to nothing more than speculation on the part of Ms 3.

of 24

The panel considered that there was only brief mention of Lignocaine in the typed notes

of the Investigation Meeting. The notes themselves do not demonstrate that any

mention of Lignocaine was explored further nor did the Trust undertake any

investigative steps to establish whether Lignocaine patches were in fact missing. The

panel further noted that Lignocaine did not form any of the charges of the investigation

by the Trust and was not one of the reasons for your dismissal. Nor were you

questioned by the PSNI about this medication during its investigation.

You have stated that you do not recall mentioning Lignocaine during the Investigation

Meeting and have consistently denied taking it or giving it to a colleague. The NMC’s

case against you in relation to charges 2 (e) and (f) relies heavily, in the panel’s view,

on the admission allegedly made by you at the Investigation Meeting. The panel found

that even taken at its height, the typed and handwritten notes of the Investigation

Meeting fall far short of an admission by you to the theft and supply of Lignocaine.

The burden of proof rests upon the NMC at the fact finding stage. The panel considered

that the NMC had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove this charge and had

therefore failed to discharge its burden.

Accordingly, the panel found charges 2 (e) and (f) not proved.

Charge 2 (g)


g. Your actions in 2.a. – 2.f. above were dishonest, in that you used your


colleague with ward medication which you knew was/ believed to be for his

personal use.

This charge is found NOT proved.

As the panel found charges 2(e) and (f) not proved, this charge falls in so far it relates to

those two charges.

of 24

Determination on misconduct and impairment

Having announced its finding on all the facts, the panel went on to consider, whether the

facts found proved amount to misconduct and, if so, whether your fitness to practise is

currently impaired. The NMC has defined fitness to practise as a registrant’s suitability

to remain on the register unrestricted.

The panel gave careful consideration to the submissions made by Mr O’Toole on behalf

of the NMC and those made by Ms Gray on your behalf. You also gave oral evidence at

this stage and provided the panel with a bundle of documents, including training

certificates, a reflective piece in relation to a training course you undertook and

references.

The panel was referred to the case of Roylance v GMC (no. 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 which

defines misconduct as “a word of general effect involving some act or omission which

falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may

often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed

by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances.”

Further, in determining past and current impairment, the panel was referred to the cases

of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2)

Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and Cohen and GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin).


The panel adopted a two stage process in its consideration as advised. Firstly, the

panel must determine whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct. Secondly,

the panel must then decide whether, in all the circumstances, your fitness to practise is

currently impaired as a result of that misconduct.

Decision on misconduct

When determining whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct the panel had

regard to The Code: Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics for Nurses and

Midwives 2008 (“the 2008 Code”), which was in force at the time of the incidents in

charge 2 and The Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses

of 24

and midwives 2015 (“the 2015 Code”), which was the version in force at the time of the

incidents in charge 1.

The panel, in reaching its decision, had regard to the public interest and accepted that

there was no burden or standard of proof at this stage and exercised its own

professional judgement.

The panel determined that your actions in charge 1 breached the 2015 Code as follows:

Promote professionalism and trust

20 Uphold the reputation of your profession at all times

To achieve this, you must:

20.1 keep to and uphold the standards and values set out in the Code

20.2 act with honesty and integrity at all times, treating people fairly and without

discrimination, bullying or harassment

20.3 be aware at all times of how your behaviour can affect and influence the

behaviour of other people

20.4 keep to the laws of the country in which you are practising

The panel determined that your actions in charge 2 breached the 2008 Code as follows:

From the preamble

The people in your care must be able to trust you with their health and wellbeing.

To justify that trust, you must:

…

be open and honest, act with integrity and uphold the reputation of your

profession

As a professional, you are personally accountable for actions and omissions in

your practice and must always be able to justify your decisions.

Paragraphs from the Code:

61 You must uphold the reputation of your profession at all times.

of 24

The panel found the theft and supplying of medication and prolonged acts of dishonesty

constituted breaches of the Code, as nurses in a position of trust must be open and

honest.

The panel recognised that breaches of the Code do not automatically result in a finding

of misconduct. The panel considered all the circumstances and whether the facts found

proved fell well below the standards expected of a registered nurse.

You had admitted to taking two boxes of Zopiclone and four boxes of Co-codamol on 6

June 2015 and giving them to a non-clinical colleague for his personal use without

permission or a clinically justified reason, and that in doing so your actions were

dishonest. You also admitted to taking Zopiclone and Co-codamol from ward stocks on

a number of occasions prior to 6 June 2015 to give to your colleague for his personal

use without permission or a clinically justified reason, and in doing so your actions were

dishonest.

The panel found that there were multiple acts of dishonesty. There was a sustained

course of dishonest conduct over a period of six months. Despite knowing what you

were doing was wrong, you continued to act dishonestly and it only came to an end as a

result of you being caught on CCTV footage. Although there was no evidence of patient

harm, you took medications which were for patients and potentially deprived patients’ of

that resource. You told the panel that the taking of medication for personal use was

common practice on the ward. However, the panel considered that as an experienced

nurse of 17 years, you should have known better. Further, you were held in high regard

and abused the trust of your patients and employer.

Nurses must always be open and honest. The panel considered that a fellow

practitioner would be appalled and disgraced to hear of a nurse behaving in such a way.

The panel concluded that your dishonest actions were unacceptable and fell

significantly short of the conduct and standards expected of a registered nurse. It

of 24

determined that your actions in all the proven charges, viewed both individually and

cumulatively, were serious enough to amount to misconduct.

Decision and reasons on impairment

The panel recognised that a finding of misconduct does not automatically result in a

finding of impairment. The panel next went on to decide whether your fitness to practise

is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct.

The panel was mindful of the overriding duty to protect the public and to act in the wider

public interest.

Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times

to be professional. Patients and their families must be able to trust nurses with their

care and the care of their loved ones. To justify that trust, nurses must act with integrity.

They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients’ and the

public’s trust in the profession.

In determining whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired the panel

considered the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of Grant. In paragraph 74, she

said:

74. In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by

reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not

only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the

public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold

proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession

would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the

particular circumstances.

Mrs Justice Cox went on to approve the following questions when considering current

impairment, in Paragraph 76:

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor’s misconduct, deficient

professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or

of 24

determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense

that s/he:

a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a

patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical

profession into disrepute; and/or

c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the

fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or

d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the

future.”

The panel first considered the issue of past impairment. It asked itself whether the

misconduct in question had breached one or more fundamental tenets of the profession

to an extent that would bring the profession into disrepute. It had careful regard to its

findings of fact and the matters set out above. Whilst the panel concluded that there

was little or no evidence that your actions had put patients at unwarranted risk of harm,

it concluded that your misconduct had in the past:

Brought the profession into disrepute;

Breached fundamental tenets of the nursing profession as set out in the Code;

and,

Involved acts of dishonesty.

For these reasons, the panel had no doubt that at the time these events occurred your

fitness to practise had been impaired by reason of your misconduct.

The panel next considered whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired and

whether you are liable to repeat your misconduct. The panel had careful regard to the

issues of insight, remediation, remorse, your past history and current practice.

The panel considered the three questions identified by Silber J, in the case of Cohen,

namely whether the misconduct is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and

whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

of 24

The panel noted your engagement with the Trust’s investigation and the NMC

proceedings and your early admission to the charges found proved. The panel was

informed that you are currently working as a registered nurse at a nursing home and

have been the subject of an interim conditions of practice order which you have fully

complied with. Further, the panel had been provided with training certificates for

medication awareness and administration of medicines update training you have

undertaken, a reflective statement following the medicines update training and a

number of positive references.

With regard to your insight, the panel noted that you made early admission to the

charges found proved and accepted that your fitness to practise was impaired by

reason of your misconduct. It was evident from your oral evidence that you fully

acknowledged that your actions were unacceptable. You repeatedly expressed how

wrong it was to act in the way you did and that you would never repeat those actions.

Further, you acknowledged the potentially serious impact and reputational damage your

dishonest actions have had on the trust of your patients, your colleagues and public

confidence.

The panel did however have some concern with regard to your explanation for why you

gave your colleague the medication. The panel also found that although there was

evidence of reflection on your part, you had not expressed a deeper and personal

reflection. When asked did you consider the potential dangers of supplying medication

to your colleague, your reply was “he was an adult”. You also stated that it never

crossed your mind to advise your colleague to seek medical advice or that there may

have been other reasons for his need for medication. The panel found that whilst you

have demonstrated some insight it is not yet complete.

Despite that, the panel was satisfied from the evidence that it heard that the likelihood of

you repeating such actions was low and that you had learnt a salutary lesson. You

articulated and appreciated the seriousness of your actions and the impacts it had on

patients, public confidence and the profession. You made repeated expressions of

remorse which having considered your evidence the panel accepted were genuine.

Further, you told the panel of a similar situation you faced in your current work place

where a care assistant had asked you for medication. You informed the panel that you

of 24

refused to give the medication and had reported it to the matron. The panel noted that

this was not referred to in the reference provided by the matron but was satisfied from

your evidence that this was a genuine account of what had happened.

With regard to remediation, the panel recognised that dishonest acts can be more

difficult to remediate than clinical failings. You have provided the panel with training

certificates for Medication Awareness and Administration of Medicines Update training

that you had undertaken and a reflective statement in relation to the medicines update

training. You have also provided a number of references and testimonials attesting to

your otherwise good character and clinical practice, one of which was provided by your

current manager. The panel noted that you have been working as a registered nurse,

albeit under an interim conditions of practice order, at a nursing home for the past year

without any further concerns raised regarding your conduct. The panel was informed

that you have been offered the post as a Palliative Care Link Nurse and that palliative

caring was always an area of nursing that you were interested in pursuing. The panel

acknowledged all the steps you have taken to keep your skills and knowledge up to

date.

The panel noted that you have expressed remorse in that you have repeatedly

apologised for your actions and asserted that you would never repeat those actions.

With regard to your past history, the panel noted that you had not previously been

brought before your regulator. The panel noted that you have since practised as a

registered nurse for approximately a year with no concerns raised regarding your

conduct or practice. You appear to have learnt a lesson from your misconduct and

acknowledged that your behaviour was wrong and unacceptable.

The panel has considered your failings in context and has had full regard to the issues

of insight, remediation and your past history. Based on all the evidence before it, the

panel was satisfied that there was low risk of repetition.

The panel went on to consider whether the need to uphold proper professional

standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of

impairment of fitness to practise were not made in the circumstances of this case. The

panel considered the seriousness of your case and the particular nature of your

of 24

misconduct which involved the theft of medication from your employer which was

supplied to your colleague. Your dishonest conduct was repeated for a period of six

months and had only come to an end because you were caught on CCTV footage. The

panel also noted that at least on one occasion, namely 6 June 2015, you took and

supplied a large quantity of medication to a colleague for his personal use without

permission or any clinical justification. Honesty and integrity are the bedrock of the

nursing profession and your actions breached fundamental tenets of the nursing

profession.

Regardless of the evidence of remediation and the low risk of repetition, in such a case,

the panel considered that public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory

process would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment. The panel found

that members of the public would be appalled if a finding of no impairment was made in

a case of repeated and prolonged dishonesty involving the theft and supply of

medication. It therefore considered that a finding of impairment was required on the

grounds of the wider public interest in declaring and upholding proper professional

standards and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory

process.

Accordingly, the panel has determined your fitness to practise is currently impaired by

reason of your misconduct on public interest grounds alone.

of 24

Decision on sanction and reasons

Having considered what, if any, sanction is appropriate in this case, the panel has

decided to impose a caution order for a period of five years. The effect of this order is

that your name on the NMC register will show that you are subject to a caution order

and anyone who enquires about your registration during this period will be informed of

this order.

In reaching this decision the panel has had regard to all the evidence that has been

adduced in this case together with the submissions of Mr O’Toole, on behalf of the NMC

and those made by Ms Gray on your behalf.


The panel was referred to and had regard to the cases of Grant, Parkinson v NMC

[2010] EWHC 1898 (Admin), Abbas v GMC [2017] EWHC 51 (Admin) and Meadows v

GMC [2006] EWCA Civ 1390.

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 has had careful regard to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance

(“ISG”). It is a guide and no more. It is for the panel to exercise its own independent

judgment having had the opportunity to see and hear from you and assess all the

evidence. The panel was mindful of its duty to protect the public interest. This includes:

the protection of patients and others; maintenance of public confidence in the profession

and in the regulatory body; and, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct

and performance. The public interest includes a nurse’s return to safe and effective

practice if appropriate and achievable.

The panel first considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in your case.

The panel determined that the aggravating factors are:

The seriousness of your misconduct, which involved theft of medication from

your employer and supply to a colleague.

This was not a single incident; you acted dishonestly over a period of 6 months.

of 24

You are an experienced nurse and should have known better.

The panel determined that the mitigating factors are:

You made early admissions to the charges.

You are otherwise a nurse of good character who has been described by

colleagues as a highly skilled, honest and competent nurse.

You have practised as a nurse for the past year without any concerns raised.

You have provided excellent testimonials and references from credible and fully

informed referees which speak extremely highly of you and attest to your

otherwise good character.

Your career has otherwise been exemplary.

There is low risk of repetition of the misconduct.

You have expressed genuine remorse and have apologised for your actions.

You acknowledged the reputational damage your misconduct would have on the

profession.

You have reflected and demonstrated insight.

You have taken all appropriate steps to keep your skills and knowledge up to

date and have remedied your misconduct.

You have never previously been brought before the NMC.

You have engaged fully with the Trust investigation, the PSNI investigation and

the NMC proceedings.

The panel bore in mind the aggravating and mitigating factors identified above when

considering the appropriate sanction in this case.

When considering what, if any, sanction to impose, the panel had particular regard to

your dishonest acts, and to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the ISG:

36 Dishonesty, even where it does not result in direct harm to patients but is related

to matters outside of a nurse or midwife’s professional practice, for example,

fraudulent claims for monies, is particularly serious because it can undermine the

trust the public place in the profession. Honesty, integrity and trustworthiness are

to be considered the bedrock of any nurse or midwife’s practice.

of 24

37 In Parkinson v NMC [2010] EWHC 1898 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting said:

“A nurse found to have acted dishonestly is always going to be at severe risk of

having his or her name erased from the register. A nurse who has acted

dishonestly, who does not appear before the Panel either personally or by

solicitors or counsel to demonstrate remorse, a realisation that the conduct

criticised was dishonest, and an undertaking that there will be no repetition,

effectively forfeits the small chance of persuading the Panel to adopt a lenient or

merciful outcome and to suspend for a period rather than direct erasure.”

The panel was also mindful that dishonesty is highly serious matter but also noted the

guidance of the High Court in Abbas and other recent decisions which stress the

importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case.

The panel took the view that your conduct had fallen below the standards expected of a

registered nurse. As such, it was the panel’s duty to declare and uphold proper

standards of conduct, so as to maintain public confidence in the profession.

The panel first considered whether to take no further action.

The panel paid careful consideration to the significant mitigating factors in your case. It

noted that since the incidents in 2015 you have practised as a registered nurse for the

past year without any concerns raised regarding your conduct or practice. It also noted

all the positive references and testimonials you have provided. You expressed genuine

remorse and had reflected on your actions. The panel was therefore satisfied that the

risk of repetition is low. However, the panel concluded that due to the seriousness of the

misconduct, taking no further action would be inappropriate in view of the seriousness

of your misconduct and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. It

would not satisfy the public interest considerations in this case

The panel went on to consider whether a caution order would be an appropriate

response. Given that the next available option, a conditions of practice order, would

most likely be inappropriate in this case now that all the evidence has been considered,

the panel examined this option closely. There are no public protection concerns in this

case and there are significant mitigating factors. The panel noted that the mitigating

of 24

factors in this case substantially outweighed the aggravating factors. The panel has

been told that there have been no adverse findings in relation to your conduct or

practice either before or after these incidents in 2015. You have been working as a

registered nurse for the past year without any concerns raised regarding your conduct

or practice. The panel noted the exemplary references and testimonials you have

provided, one of which was provided by your current manager who described you as

“open and honest”.

The panel considered that the misconduct in this case, albeit serious, was a significant

error of judgement on your part. It noted that the theft and supply of the medication was

not for personal use or gain but rather it was done in your belief to “help a friend”.

Further, you informed the panel of a similar incident which had occurred at your current

work place which you dealt with appropriately by refusing to give your colleague the

requested medication and reporting it to the matron. The panel was particularly

impressed with this as it demonstrated that you have learnt a salutary lesson and know

what you must do when placed in a similar situation. This would also reinforce the

confidence of the public that you have learnt your lesson and would not repeat such

conduct.

The panel accepted that this was a lapse of judgement on your part, albeit a serious

one. You have had an otherwise exemplary career of 17 years. The panel noted that

there were no deep-seated attitudinal issues, you are otherwise of good character and

are a nurse who is held in high regard. You expressed genuine remorse and repeatedly

apologised for your actions, reassuring the panel that you would never again act in such

a way. One of the NMC witnesses also told the panel that you were immediately

remorseful and full of regret and that you continued to display this remorse and regret

during your contact with the Trust whilst you were under suspension. You

acknowledged the seriousness of your misconduct and the impact it had on the trust of

your patients, colleagues and employers. You also appreciated the negative impact

such dishonest conduct has on public confidence, the reputation of the profession and

the NMC as its regulator. You expressed the importance of being open, honest and

acting with integrity.

of 24

In the particular circumstances of this case, the panel has concluded that a caution

order is the most appropriate and proportionate sanction. The panel was satisfied that a

caution order would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the nursing profession

and the regulator, to uphold proper professional standards by marking that such a failing

is unacceptable and falls below the standards expected of a registered nurse. It was

satisfied that a reasonable and informed member of the public would understand the

reasons for taking such an exceptional course in your case. The panel also took into

account the public interest in retaining a highly valued and experienced nurse in

practice. It therefore concluded that a caution order is the most appropriate and

proportionate sanction, balancing the public interest with your interests.

The panel noted your personal and financial circumstances but was mindful that such

circumstances can only be given limited weight in those cases where a sanction is

required to protect the public interest.

The panel considered whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose a

more restrictive sanction and considered a conditions of practice order. This is not a

case which concerns clinical failings. There were no identifiable areas in your practice

which you required further retraining or supervision. The evidence before the panel was

that you in fact are a highly skilled, hardworking and competent nurse. The panel

therefore found that there would be no useful purpose served in imposing a conditions

of practice order, nor would it be appropriate or proportionate in these circumstances.

The panel went on to consider the next available sanction of suspension. The panel was

mindful that a period of suspension would also sufficiently serve the public interest

considerations in this case. However, given the significant mitigating factors in your

case and the fact that you have had an otherwise exemplary career, the panel

determined that in the particular circumstances of this case, a suspension order would

be disproportionate and punitive. It would also deprive the public of the services of a

highly skilled and experienced nurse.

The panel next considered the appropriate length of time for the caution order. The

panel concluded that the maximum period of five years would be adequate,

proportionate and would protect the wider public interest, marking the seriousness of

the misconduct and sending out a message that such conduct is unacceptable and that

of 24

it must not happen again.

During this period any prospective employer will be on notice that your fitness to

practise has been found to be impaired and that a caution order has been imposed. Any

prospective employer could make enquiries as to the circumstances of the making of

the caution order and this will put the employer on notice of any potential problem.

At the end of this period the note on your entry in the register will be removed.

That concludes this determination.

This decision will be confirmed in writing.

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 6 9 ... · 6/9/2017 · Legal Assessor:...

Documents

Transcript of Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 6 9 ... · 6/9/2017 · Legal Assessor:...