A cautionary tale
It is often the case that when a nurse or other professional makes one error, their case load is rigorously audited, and a whole series of other mistakes come to light. I see these sort of cases come before the NMC and HCPC often. The difficulty with them, for the registrant, is that they usually have not had their failings brought to their attention before the one first discovered. This means there is no opportunity to put things right before matters escalate, to dismissal and then to fitness to practice proceedings.
This week I represented a nurse in this position, where the audit turned up a series of errors going back over 2 years. As a fitness to practice referral followed the inevitable dismissal, things got worse when the NMC imposed a conditions of practice order, seriously restricting this nurse's right to practice. Nevertheless, the dedication of the nurse meant that they were able to secure further employment and to work within the conditions of practice. When you work within conditions of practice for long enough, you can expect to put your failings right, so that the conditions of practice can be removed at one of the mandatory reviews of the order. However, this nurse was just not able to persuade a panel to remove the conditions.
This is where I came in. After another unsuccessful review, they sought help from me. I instituted a further review of the order and attended the review to represent my client. When the panel heard my arguments, they finally agreed the order should be removed.
Onto the final hearing, and unfortunately, my client was not financially in a position either to attend the hearing or to pay for me to attend for more than two out of five days. I worked out tactically the best two days to attend and ensured that the panel had written material from us for the three other days. When I did attend, I made persuasive arguments as to my client's impairment and the appropriate sanction. The NMC's position to start with had been that my client should be suspended for 12 months. After the panel's response to my first set of submissions, that position changed to a short period of suspension or a long caution order. I argued that in fact a short caution was appropriate, and the panel concluded that a 3 year caution order (the maximum is 5 years) was the right sanction.
From a case where the panel described my client's actions as "serious and multiple failings over a two year period" and in respect of vulnerable patients, and the NMC were pushing for a maximum period of suspension, this was an outstanding result. It shows what can be achieved when a client and their representative work hand in hand on putting the best case forward.
