To think the NMC holding a hearing to decide whether Lucy Letby should be struck off the nursing register is ridiculous

[Mylovelycupoftea]

link

I mean, how is this a good use of public money?

I've pushed before for people who are intending to let their thing lapse to be struck off. For me it'd important as public record to say they aren't suitable for the job.

Otherwise they might have re registered or even if not got a job that is related

I find this interesting. I would have fought hard against a striking off order-I upheld the code of conduct by practising within the sphere of my competence. I never put a foot wrong. I should be allowed to be bow out with dignity not be struck off as punishment.

In the future, my emotional wellbeing may recover- (I highly doubt it), with a return to practice course there is no reason why I would not be able to function to the same high standard I did previously. A striking off order would almost certainly prevent that.

Why would you push for a striking off order for someone voluntarily removing themselves who have done nothing wrong?

She will not have been appointed as an NED unless she has sufficient high level experience personally, therefore qualifying her for it. They won't have given her the job because her DH did a similar one!

^^ This. It has to be fair and transparent. Irrespective of what we think (on this thread) there is now a formal investigation taking place of the whole case. Also, Letby will have an opportunity to appeal. NMC might be bureaucratic but they have a job to do.

Leaving the thread now, off to my 'well paid' public sector job, £29K p.a. 🙄

Absolutely this. The NMC need to make sure her being struck off is absolutely watertight and this is thre only way to do it

persnickety?

And yes, we have to pay our own registration/revalidation costs - nothing wrong with that. It ensures professional safe care
And remember, those who pay the piper call the tune, so never let your employer pay your professional fees.
Also, it would add a benefit to your salary, so you would be taxed on it

*I've pushed before for people who are intending to let their thing lapse to be struck off. For me it'd important as public record to say they aren't suitable for the job.

Otherwise they might have re registered or even if not got a job that is related. I know people who for example told people they gave up because of not wanting shift work etc and attempted to get a similar job but not a specific nursing job in voluntary services, register with a professional body abroad who was less stringent, worked in care etc. *

This. I see a good number of applications from former registered HCP applying for unqualified posts. They always ping my spidey senses. Why would someone work for a salary that is least a third lower without good reason? That's not to say there aren't ever good reasons - it's not uncommon for someone with caring responsibilities to let their registration lapse for example and then look for part time work, but it's also very common for evasiveness to be covering up something they would rather I didn't find out.

LL is an extreme example - her DBS would exclude her from a new role above all else- but I'm pleased the NMC follow process.

To be honest, knowing some of the decisions the NMC has made, I wouldn't be surprised if she was kept on the Register!

Sorry I meant for people that have been fired or have some form of gross misconduct!

I think it's really important to defrentiate between people that genuinely are letting it lapse and those that are quietly leaving to avoid hearings.

There are lots of people (like you) who lapse because they have other commitments or have had a rough time in the job etc and those people should be allowed to do revalidation processes to rejoin, do things like work in similar jobs. For example my best friend was entirely battered by a covid redeployment, left because it didn't fit in with her family life and to protect her mh, it's completely reasonable that she currently works abroad in a job that she applied to that doesn't need a pin but her nursing skills are a huge asset. She should also be allowed to re apply should she want to

However there's also lots of people that leave any job before they are pushed. For example staff that leave before the outcome of disciplinarys so they can say they weren't fired or that the disciplinary process was never completed. This is common in any job and happened frequently in to catch a copper TV programme for example. They will say "ah don't worry about contacting nmc/hcpc I've no intention of re registering".

However that means there's no public record to say that's true.

During covid there was a push to allow retirees and those who's reg had lapsed to come back with easy processes. Often these people were using more recent non NHS jobs as references so I'd would have no idea if 10 years ago they had been pushed out the door but simply told me that they left for other reasons.

It's a real sticky point for me because when I was a newer manager we had an awful member of staff who left, but left with a clean record when they shouldn't of because process were halted when he left and subsequently went on to commit an offence. I'll forever feel guilty for not finding a way to make sure a bad reference followed him forever that might have warned his subsequent jobs that there was a reason why he couldn't apply for NHS jobs because our trust knew him well.

It’s all been said - due process, proper records, will no doubt be a formality etc.

The only thing that bothers me about disciplinary proceedings in these circumstances, i.e. for convicted monsters, is where the person exploits it for malicious, tormenting publicity. Particularly if there’s a right to appear in person.

The same applies to court cases brought by notorious prisoners. Sadly, we have to put up with the many pointless, wasteful cases (not appeals) brought by prisoners: they have that right, and they should have it, even if many abuse it.

In circumstances like Letby’s, conducting these things by paperwork would be preferable, and that may well be what the NMC will do.

The NMC hardly covered themselves in glory when they went to bat hard for Letby when she was initially accused by doctors several years before her eventual arrest.

If only they had stopped to examine the doctors' evidence rather than simply support her,some of her victims would be alive today so I think this current hearing means only more bad PR for them and they'd look better if they struck her off unilaterally.

So I’m going to concede I have been UR you’ve persuaded me.

However when you read the link it does seem that they sat around discussing it! Which seems bonkers to me but admittedly could just be the way it’s worded.

Well done. It’s not often you see that. Hats off to you @Mylovelycupoftea.

I don’t mind admitting I’m an idiot! Some of you have really taken time to explain why it is important and it’s helped me understand. I really do appreciate you explaining this to me.

Not an idiot, just needed clarity on the whys and wherefores of the process 😊

I absolutely agree with this. I think I remember a couple of cases that have been NMC referred and the person tried to voluntarily removed and they didn't allow it-I agree with this completely.

I also tried a non nursing (but caring facing) role after I came off the register-with full references and explaining what had happened etc. The problem I found was the line was terribly blurred because colleagues knew my qualification and expected more than I should have been expected to do in the role I was in. It lasted 3 months and I left the sector completely.

Do you mean in any case or just if the reason for dismissal reaches the threshold for being struck off? For instance, a data breach can potentially equal gross misconduct but I doubt would mean someone could or should never work as a nurse again in isolation. Surely more nurses are sacked than struck off.

Re jumping before being pushed, I understand you but this isn't always an admission of guilt.

Someone could decide their MH isn't up to an investigation, there could be bullying skewing the evidence, they could know they didn't do whatever the issue is but the evidence looks terrible.

I'm not sure about the ethics or legality of applying a serious disciplinary procedure which striking a clinician off is, without a fair investigation, even a lapsed practitioner with an outstanding disciplinary.

And I'm not sure how fair the investigation would be, essentially reopening an old disciplinary years after they'd left and chosen not to pursue it at the time. Would they still have evidence etc, would witnesses be likely to have moved on/ not remember what happened.

For most cases we wouldn't be talking a criminal issue, just work mistakes.

Saying 'you have to complete an investigation either locally or with the NMC or you'll be recorded as struck off either way' feels like asking for trouble to me procedurally. What if someone was genuinely taken ill or had family issues during the investigation (bear in mind these are not always recognised for compassionate purposes)?

Those jumping or being sacked may accept not nursing again but I'm not sure every possible person in this position merits the ignominy of being struck off the register.

Sorry for essay!! You made an interesting point and I started musing on it

People don't only get referred the NMC for gross misconduct though. Competence issues are a significant issue too. A scenario to consider could be someone who made a series of drug errors and chose to resign from their organisation instead of going through the disciplinary process.

It's important for public protection that that individual doesn't just take a job in another organisation.

If they stayed in their original organisation it's far more likely that they will be given additional training and support to keep them safe or have restrictions placed on giving medication as a sole practitioner unless and until they can show they are safe and competent. If they resign, they are able to work elsewhere, including agency work or set themselves up as self employed, unless they are reported to the NMC.

If that was a response by to my post, I understand you but my question was: does the PP mean any disciplinary brought against a nurse should default to them being struck off permanently after the existing registration lapses if the subject leaves before resolution for any reason?

Similarly, should any dismissal default to being struck off if the individual lets their NMC registration lapse?

That really doesn't seem solid at all. It's more about the point of being fully investigated.

No of course only if the fair process is applied. It's just frustrating when that process is stopped because someone simply leaves rather than because the internal process is played out

Nmc/governing bodies have a really strict criteria so there'd rightly be no point for minor non career ending mistakes

does the PP mean any disciplinary brought against a nurse should default to them being struck off permanently after the existing registration lapses if the subject leaves before resolution for any reason?

Not by default, no. I was trying to illustrate that referral to the NMC isn't always due to gross misconduct or malice and if a registrant's competence is in question, referral may still be appropriate.

it's not unusual to see chequered CVs when candidates applying for new roles have practice restrictions imposed by the NMC and I often wonder what really happened in the years before someone had the courage to refer.

None of this of course is about exhausted nurses who have enough and walk out of the door to preserve their sanity. It is about protecting the public from nurses whose character or competence isn't compatible with the trust placed in them.