Incorrect or Fraudulent Entries on the NMC Register

The NMC will investigate allegations about whether an entry on its register is fraudulent or incorrect and will act if an entry is fraudulent. We look at the types of NMC entries, when an entry might be considered fraudulent and the powers available to the NMC.

The NMC will investigate allegations about whether an entry on its register is fraudulent or incorrect, and will act if an entry is fraudulent. We look at the types of NMC entries, when an entry might be considered fraudulent, and the powers available to the NMC.

Entries on the NMC’s Register

There are numerous types of Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register entries that, according to the NMC, are liable to errors or information that is deliberately misleading. These can be broken down as follows:

Approved qualification
Indemnity arrangement
Health and Character Declarations
Non-payment of fee
Other registration requirements
Registered practice hours
Continuing professional development
Identity fraud

Incorrect or fraudulent register entries are considered for:

first time registrations
registration renewals
readmission to the register

In relation to these entries, the NMC may receive allegations about an entry on the register that is fraudulent or incorrect. When this happens, the NMC will open an investigation to establish if the allegation points to “deliberately misleading” information on its register.

The NMC says it will prioritise these types of allegations because it needs to, in the first instance, establish if a nurse or midwife is entitled to practise before it will consider if a nurse or midwife’s fitness to practise may be impaired.

Incorrect or Fraudulent Entries

What could be considered an incorrect entry as opposed to a fraudulent entry?

According to the NMC:

An incorrect entry is when it registers, renews or readmits a nurse or midwife onto the register based on wrong or inaccurate information as a result of “a simple mistake by a nurse, midwife or nursing associate, by the NMC or another third party.”
Conversely, an entry on the register is fraudulently procured if either any of the information was submitted with the deliberate intention to mislead the NMC provided to the NMC as part of an application was obtained or created by fraud.

Each case will be determined on a case by case basis and considered on its individual merits.

NMC Investigation Process

Fraudulent entries will involve an element of dishonesty amounting to misconduct. This will affect a nurse or midwife’s fitness to practise, giving the NMC grounds to investigate.

It is worth noting that the NMC will refer both incorrect or fraudulent cases to its Investigating Committee at the conclusion of an investigation only if it considers that the allegation is capable of amounting to an allegation of incorrect or fraudulent entry. Therefore, the NMC is unlikely to refer cases to its Investigating Committee for:

cases where the evidence doesn’t support a finding of fraudulent or incorrect entry;
incorrect entry cases where the error was not material (meaning that it either wouldn’t have made any difference to the entry in the Register or it has since been addressed); or
cases where, if we did make a referral to the Investigating Committee, our recommendation would be that no regulatory action was required.

If the Investigating Committee finds an allegation of fraudulent or incorrect entry proved, it mayorder the Registrar to remove the entry, amend the entry, or it may take no action.The Committee also has the power to impose an interim order at the same time.

Current Fitness to Practise

Nurses and midwives often make the mistake of assuming that their current fitness to practise is a relevant consideration for the Investigating Committee when it considers allegations of fraudulent or incorrect entries.

Current fitness to practise is irrelevant in cases of fraudulent or incorrect entries. This is because, if a nurse or midwife was accepted onto, or remained on the register incorrectly or fraudulently in the first place, they were (are) not entitled to legally practise and therefore their fitness to do so, at the time of consideration, is irrelevant.

The NMC states:

“Because the Committee’s focus is the validity of the original registration, renewal or readmission decision, evidence about the person’s current work or ability to provide care is unlikely to be relevant.

“It doesn’t matter whether or not the person whose name was entered on the register could meet the relevant criteria to be successfully registered, or if they’re currently able to practise safely. The key issue is if we made the entry based on information that was either submitted with the deliberate intention to mislead the NMC or was fraudulently obtained or created.”

Expert Legal Advice Matters

Legal advice and representation matters in cases involving allegations of fraudulent or incorrect entries. The nurse or midwife will have an opportunity to respond and submit information and evidence to the NMC. Legal advice and representation will greatly assist nurses and midwives with clear, robust and timely responses that can lead to a resolution without the need to refer the matter to the Investigating Committee.

In cases where the NMC does decide to refer the matter to its Investigating Committee, we can represent nurses and midwives. With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence. We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.

We are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for our clients, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.

Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

Finally, the impact of procedural delays cannot be underestimated. Prolonged proceedings can cause undue harm to the accused, affecting their career and reputation. Timely resolutions are essential to upholding justice while minimizing unnecessary stress on all parties involved. By focusing on these principles, fitness-to-practise tribunals can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of their proceedings.

Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.