Deciding on incorrect or fraudulent entry
When it considers an allegation of incorrect or fraudulent entry1, the Investigating Committee’s focus is on deciding whether it is more likely than not that our registration, renewal or readmission decision was made based on information that was incorrect or fraudulent.
The Investigating Committee will assess how the nurse, midwife or nursing associate was accepted onto, or remained on our register, in the first place, rather than assessing their current practice.
In doing this, it considers whether the information about the person’s character, qualifications, practice hours or other entry requirements was correct at the time it was submitted.
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.
When making these decisions, the Investigating Committee should consider the guidance about incorrect or fraudulent entry allegations.
1 Rule 5 of The Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (‘the Rules’) sets out the procedure to be followed.
- Download
- Email Page
- Last Updated: 12/10/2018
Want to download and print whole sections of this FtP library? Visit the downloads page.
FtP library
-
Understanding Fitness to Practise
- Aims and principles for fitness to practise
- Allegations we consider
- How we determine seriousness
- Why we screen cases
- When we use interim orders
- Investigations
- Examining cases
- How we manage cases
- Meetings and hearings
- Resolving cases by agreement
- What sanctions are and when we might use them
-
Taking account of context
- Taking account of context - overview
- 1: We’ll approach cases on the basis that most people referred to us are normally safe
- 2: We’ll seek to build an accurate picture about the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s practising history
- 3: We’ll always carefully consider evidence of discrimination, victimisation, bullying or harassment
- 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
- 5: In cases where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate was required to use their professional judgement we’ll respond proportionately
- 6: 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
- 7: We’ll always look into whether group norms or culture influenced an individual’s behaviour before taking action
- 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
- What context factors we think are important to know about when considering a case
- Our culture of curiosity
- Decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Disclosure Scotland
- Insight and strengthened practice
- Engaging with your case
-
Screening
-
Our overall approach
- Our overall approach - overview
-
The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions
- The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions - overview
- Do we have a written concern about a nurse, midwife or nursing associate on our register?
- Is there evidence of a serious concern that could require us to take regulatory action to protect the public
- Is there clear evidence to show that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is currently fit to practise?
- Clinical advice
- Referrals to other regulators
- Referrers that wish to remain anonymous
- Whistleblowing
- A decision not to take any further action at this time
- Determining the regulatory concern
- Cases that may involve incorrect or fraudulent entry
-
Our overall approach
- Interim Orders
- Investigations
- Case Examiners
-
Preparing for the FtP Committee
- Reviewing cases after they are referred to the FtPC
-
Drafting charges
- Why do we have guidance on charges?
- Jargon buster
- General approach
- How a charge becomes final
- Practical drafting issues
- Particular features of misconduct charging
- Drafting charges in health cases
- Other fitness to practise charges
- Multiple allegations
- Drafting charges in incorrect or fraudulent entry cases
- Documents panels use when deciding cases
- Gathering further evidence after the investigation
- Disclosure
- Notice of our hearings and meetings
-
Case management
- Hearing fitness to practise allegations together
- Telephone conferences
- Preliminary meetings
- Considering cases at meetings and hearings
- Removal by Agreement
- Cancelling hearings
- Constitution of panels
- Proceeding with hearings when the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is absent
- Case management during hearings
- Hearings in private and in public
- When we postpone or adjourn hearings
- Supporting people to give evidence in hearings
-
FtP Committee decision making
- Impairment
- Consensual panel determination
- Offering no evidence
- Abuse of process
- Directing further investigation during a hearing
- Evidence
- Making decisions on sexual misconduct
- Making decisions on dishonesty charges and the professional duty of candour
- Agreed removal at hearings
- Deciding on incorrect or fraudulent entry
- Sanctions
-
Reviews
- Reviewing case examiner decisions
- Interim order reviews
-
Substantive order reviews
- Substantive order reviews - overview
- Standard reviews of substantive orders before they expire
- Early review
- Exceptional cases: changing orders with immediate effect at a standard review
- Review of striking-off orders
- New allegations
- Reviewing orders when there may have been a breach
- Reviews where an interim order is in place
- Removal from the register when there is a substantive order in place
- Appeals and restoration