Final panel decision: what should happen to a nurse who forged a colleague’s signature on timesheets? | nursing times

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 striking off order. The effect of this order is that the

Nursing and Midwifery Council register will show that Nurse A has been struck off the register. The panel agreed that Nurse A’s misconduct was fundamentally incompatible with ongoing

registration. They submitted that, in the NMC’s view, a striking off order was the appropriate, necessary and proportionate sanction in this case. The panel decided that it would be neither

proportionate nor in the public interest to take no further action. It then went on to consider whether a suspension order would be an appropriate sanction. The panel did not consider that

Nurse A’ misconduct was an isolated incident. They had forged Colleague A’s signature on six timesheets over a period of almost two months. They withheld information from their new employer

some six months later, despite having been subject in the intervening period to NMC disciplinary proceedings concerning their honesty and integrity. The panel also had regard to the fact

that Nurse A failed to put their insight and learning into practice. The panel had regard to the fact that Nurse A has expressed remorse and made full admissions to the charges. However, the

panel could not attach significant weight to late admissions made in the face of overwhelming evidence. The panel was of the view that, in these circumstances, allowing Nurse A to continue

practising would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as a regulatory body. Having regard to the matters it identified, in particular the effect of Nurse A’ actions

in bringing the profession into disrepute by adversely affecting the public’s view of how a registered nurse should conduct themselves, the panel concluded that nothing short of this would

be sufficient. The panel considered that this order was necessary to mark the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession. The panel was satisfied that an interim

suspension order is in the public interest. It recognised that the threshold for imposing an interim order on public interest grounds alone is high. However, the panel had regard to the

seriousness of the facts found proved, the specific circumstances of this case, and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order in reaching the decision to impose an

interim order. To do otherwise would be incompatible with its earlier findings. The period of this order was for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and

determined.