Commiting to the Commitments
Cathryn Watters
RGN, DipHe(Onc), Prince2, Director: NMCWatch: registrant care CIC Founder: Fit2practise
In March 2021 the NMC made 8 commitments to endeavour to ensure context was investigated as strongly as accusations against a registrant during Fitness to Practice investigation
Commitment 1: We’ll approach cases on the basis that most people referred to us are normally safe
Commitment 2: We’ll seek to build an accurate picture about the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s practising history
Commitment 3: We’ll always carefully consider evidence of discrimination, victimisation, bullying or harassment
Commitment 4: Where risks are caused by system and process failures, we’ll concentrate on the action we can take to help resolve the underlying issues
Commitment 5: In cases where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate was required to use their professional judgement we’ll respond proportionately
Commitment 6: We’ll look for evidence of steps the nurse, midwife or nursing associate has taken to address serious concerns caused by a gap in knowledge or training or personal context factors
领英推荐
Commitment 7: We’ll always look into whether group norms or culture influenced an individual’s behaviour before taking action
Commitment 8: Where an incident has occurred because of cultural problems, we’ll concentrate on taking action to minimise the risk of the same thing happening again
A very thorough context form was devised and is sent out to registrants fairly early on in the investigation process. However the experience of our members is that once completed, little is done with this other than to ask the questions.
Perhaps the NMC should begin their "new approach" to reviewing these commitments and assessing why these are still not being embedded into their processes.
If they are truly committed to the commitments then these should be the baseline on which a neutral investigation occurs, rather than the current process which our experience shows is about risk assessing if the NMC are more likely than not to prove their case v's is this referral justified and could there be an alternative explanation.
Can the NMC really ever be best placed to undertake a neutral investigation to consider and assess all these aspects or is it time to be honest and accept that this is a legal process and a legal process alone. Ultimately FtP will also hinge on the individual's responsibilities and actions or inactions so can context really make a difference?
Recently we have seen a number of cases closed at screening, which is encouraging but we are concerned that this is still fundamentally orientating around if the case can be proven rather than public and registrant safety
If you have any thoughts about this please email us on [email protected]