Page 1 of 31
Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing
7-9 February 2017 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE
Name of Registrant Nurse: Miss Michelle Teresa McClintock
NMC PIN: 85A0020N
Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse – Sub part 1
19 April 1988
Area of Registered Address: England
Type of Case: Misconduct
Panel Members: Sally Ruthen (Chair, Lay member)
Sue O’Sullivan (Registrant member)
Paul Powici (Lay member)
Legal Assessor: Trevor Jones
Panel Secretary: Keyorra Shrimpton Miss McClintock: Not present or represented
Nursing and Midwifery Council: Represented by Barnaby Hone, counsel,
instructed by the NMC Regulatory Legal Team
Facts proved by admission: 1 (except for Particular 7 in Schedule 1), 2.1, 2.2, 3, 6 (in relation to Schedule 2(b)).
Facts proved: 4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6 (in relation to Schedule 2(a)).
Facts not proved: 1 (Particular 7 in Schedule 1), 6 (in relation to Schedule 2(c)).
Fitness to practise: Impaired
Sanction: Striking-off order
Interim Order: Interim suspension order – 18 months
Page 2 of 31
Details of charges (as amended): That you, a registered nurse and working as a band 7 ward manager on Oxford Ward at William Harvey Hospital and employed by East Kent Universities Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 1) Between 8 August 2013 and 22 May 2014 in relation to Electronic Discharge Notifications, acted beyond the scope of your competence by undertaking one or more of the actions set out in schedule 1 on the respective dates listed. 2) On 22 May 2014: 2.1 asked Colleague A to sign a prescription form for insulin when they were not authorised to do so 2.2 stated words to the effect of “sign it yourself, no one will recognise your signature in the community” 3) Your actions set out in charge 2 were dishonest as you knew Colleague A did not have authorisation to sign the prescription. 4) On one or more occasions on unknown dates between 17 July 2013 and 23 May 2014 you incorrectly and/or inappropriately completed and/or amended continuing care checklists. 5) Your conduct at charge 4 was dishonest in that you: 5.1. intended to conceal the patient’s/patients’ true continuing care needs; and/or 5.2. intended to expedite the patient’s/patients’ discharge; and/or 5.3 knew the continuing care checklists were inaccurate. 6) On an unknown date between 17 July 2013 and 23 May 2014 you were overheard in a clinical area stating words to the effect as those set out in Schedule 2 in relation to patients and/or colleagues. And in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct. Schedule 1: Date of EDN form Named Clinician Action taken by
registrant
13 August 2013 Michelle McClintock Prescription sent
17 October 2013 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on
Page 3 of 31
the ward
8 November 2013 Dr 1 Revoked a prescription on 5 November 2013
8 November 2013 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on the ward
21 November 2013 Ms 4 Prescription sent to pharmacy
2 December 2013 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on the ward
8 January 2014 Michelle McClintock Added Buscopan and dispensed medication on the ward
27 February 2014 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on the ward; Revoked prescription
25 March 2014 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on the ward
2 April 2014 Michelle McClintock Dispensed medication on the ward
24 April 2014 Michelle McClintock Revoked prescription; Dispensed medication on the ward
15 May 2014 Michelle McClintock Revoked prescription from pharmacy
22 May 2014 Michelle McClintock Prescription sent
Schedule 2: a) “they can just shit in their own toilet at home get rid of them so I have a discharge” b) “she’s bleeding like a stuffed pig” c) “I’m bored, who can we get rid of next?”
Page 4 of 31
Decision on Service of Notice of Hearing: Miss McClintock was not in attendance and was not represented. Written notice of this
hearing had been sent to Miss McClintock’s registered address by recorded delivery
and by first class post on 15 December 2016. Royal Mail “Track and Trace”
documentation confirmed that the notice of hearing was sent to Miss McClintock’s
registered address by recorded delivery on that date.
The panel took into account that the notice letter provided details of the allegations, the
time, dates and venue of the hearing and, amongst other things, information about Ms
McClintock’s right to attend, be represented and call evidence, as well as the panel’s
power to proceed in her absence. The “Track and Trace” documentation also indicated
that the notice was received and signed for in the printed name of “MCCLINTOCK” on
16 December 2016.
Mr Hone submitted the NMC had complied with the requirements of Rules 11 and 34 of
the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, as amended (“the
Rules”).
The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
In the light of all of the information available, the panel was satisfied that Miss
McClintock had been served with notice of this hearing in accordance with the
requirements of Rules 11 and 34.
Decision on proceeding in the absence of the Registrant: The panel had regard to Rule 21 (2) (b) which states:
Page 5 of 31
“Where the registrant fails to attend and is not represented at the hearing, the
Committee...may, where the Committee is satisfied that the notice of hearing has
been duly served, direct that the allegation should be heard and determined
notwithstanding the absence of the registrant...”
Mr Hone guided the panel through the background to Miss McClintock’s case. He told
the panel that this matter was listed for a previous hearing on 13 October 2016, but that
the NMC agreed to an adjournment on the basis that the RCN had stopped being
instructed by Miss McClintock. Mr Hone told the panel that the outcome of a pre-
meeting on 9 December 2016 was that there was a request that Miss McClintock
engage with the NMC further. Mr Hone submitted there has been no further
engagement by Miss McClintock except for an email dated 3 February 2017 which
stated that Miss McClintock does not wish to attend her substantive hearing, the panel
has the submissions prepared for her by the RCN , and that she accepts the matter will
go ahead.
Mr Hone therefore invited the panel to continue in the absence of Miss McClintock on
the basis that Miss McClintock had voluntarily absented herself. He submitted that Miss
McClintock has not asked for an adjournment, and there is nothing before the panel
which would suggest that Miss McClintock would attend her substantive hearing in the
future.
The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel noted that its
discretionary power to proceed in the absence of a registrant under the provisions of
Rule 21 is one that should be exercised “with the utmost care and caution” as referred
to in the case of R. v Jones (Anthony William), (No.2) [2002] UKHL 5 and Davies v
HCPC 2016 EWCA Civ 1593.
The panel had sight of email correspondence dated 3 February 2017 which stated, “I
will not be attending the hearing...The Rcn (sic) have already provided my submissions
before unexpectedly with drawing (sic) from my case without prior notification to myself.
I am no longer a member...I will await the outcome and accept whatever that may be.”
Page 6 of 31
The panel has decided to proceed in the absence of Miss McClintock. In reaching this
decision, the panel has considered the submissions of Mr Hone, and the advice of the
legal assessor. It has had regard to the overall interests of justice and fairness to all
parties. It noted that:
• Miss McClintock has stated in email correspondence dated 3 February 2017 that
she will “await the outcome and accept whatever that may be”. The panel
considered that Miss McClintock has therefore voluntarily chosen not to
participate in this hearing;
• no application for an adjournment has been made by Miss McClintock;
• there is no reason to suppose that adjourning would secure Miss McClintock’s
attendance at some future date;
• three NMC witnesses have attended today to give live evidence;
• not proceeding may inconvenience the witnesses and their employer;
• the charges relate to events that occurred in 2013 and 2014; further delay could
affect the memory of witnesses;
• there is a strong public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case.
In these circumstances, the panel has decided that it is fair and proportionate to
proceed in the absence of Miss McClintock. The panel will draw no adverse inference
from Miss McClintock’s absence in its findings of fact.
Admissions to charges:
The panel had sight of Miss McClintock’s Standard Direction Form (SDF), and although
this is undated and unsigned, the panel noted that this was sent in by Miss McClintock’s
legal representatives at the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) on 10 May 2016.
Mr Hone, on behalf of the NMC, submitted that if Miss McClintock had any concerns
about her admissions in the SDF, she has had 9 months to raise this with her regulator.
Mr Hone told the panel Miss McClintock has not raised any concerns with the
admissions she has made on the SDF.
Page 7 of 31
The panel decided that Miss McClintock has had ample opportunity to raise any
concerns with the SDF submitted by the RCN on her behalf on 10 May 2016. Further, in
recent email correspondence dated 3 February 2017 between Miss McClintock and a
case officer at the NMC, Miss McClintock stated that “The Rcn (sic) have already
provided my submissions…” Miss McClintock has not made any objections in her recent
correspondence with the NMC, and therefore, the panel went on to carefully consider
the admissions Miss McClintock made on the SDF.
The panel found that Miss McClintock has admitted charge 1, except particular 7 in
Schedule 1, which she partly denies. The panel therefore found this charge proved,
albeit that the seventh particular in Schedule 1 is not proved. The panel considered that charges 2.1, 2.2 and 3 are admitted in their entirety and the
panel therefore found charges 2 and 3 proved in their entirety.
The panel considered that Miss McClintock has admitted charge 6, which relates to
Schedule 2, insofar as Schedule 2(b) is admitted. The panel therefore found Charge 6
proved only in relation to Schedule 2(b).
The panel therefore determined that charges 1 (except Particular 7 in Schedule 1), 2.1,
2.2, 3 and 6 (only in relation to Schedule 2(b)) are proved by way of Miss McClintock’s
admissions.
Decision and reasons on further application to amend charges:
During the course of Ms 2’s evidence, the panel heard an application made by Mr Hone,
on behalf of the NMC, to amend the wording of Schedule 1, particular 7, which goes to
Charge 1.
The proposed amendments to the charges are as follows, and are indicated in bold:
Schedule 1:
Page 8 of 31
Date of EDN form Named Clinician Action taken by registrant
8 January 2014 Michelle McClintock Revoked a prescription then added Buscopan Added Buscopan and dispensed medication on the ward
Mr Hone submitted that the proposed amendment to Charge 1 better reflects the
evidence as set out at page 73 of the NMC bundle. He submitted that such a change is
fair, clear and it qualifies the actions that are alleged to have taken place by Miss
McClintock.
The panel considered the application made by Mr Hone following the completion of Ms
2’s oral evidence.
The panel had regard to Rule 28 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to
Practise) Rules 2004, as amended (“the Rules”):
28. (1) At any stage before making its findings of fact, in accordance with [ rule 24(5) or
(11) ] , the Investigating Committee (where the allegation relates to a fraudulent or
incorrect entry in the register) [ , the Health Committee ] or the Conduct and
Competence Committee, may amend
(a) the charge set out in the notice of hearing; or
(b) the facts set out in the charge, on which the allegation is based,
unless, having regard to the merits of the case and the fairness of the proceedings, the
required amendment cannot be made without injustice.
(2) Before making any amendment under paragraph (1), the Committee shall consider
any representations from the parties on this issue.
In considering Mr Hone’s application, the panel accepted that these amendments would
cause no prejudice to Miss McClintock.
Page 9 of 31
The panel decided to allow Mr Hone’s application.
Accordingly, the panel accepted the application to amend Particular 7 of Schedule 1 in
relation to Charge 1.
Background:
Miss McClintock was employed by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation
Trust (“the Trust”) from 1 April 2000. At the time of the allegations Miss McClintock was
the Ward Manager on Oxford Ward at William Harvey Hospital.
The allegations relate to Miss McClintock’s inappropriate behaviour towards staff and
patients, amending continuing care checklists which affect patient discharge/ care, and
practising beyond the scope of her competence in amending Electronic Discharge
Notifications (EDN).
Ms 2 carried out an investigation into Miss McClintock’s practice and recommended
disciplinary action be taken by the Trust. Ms 1 and Mr 3 worked as Staff Nurses, with
Miss McClintock as their line manager, and also raised concerns about Miss
McClintock’s practice.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Miss McClintock was dismissed from the Trust on 8
July 2014.
Decision on the findings on facts and reasons: In reaching its decisions on the facts, the panel considered all the evidence presented in
this case together with the submissions made by Mr Hone, on behalf of the NMC.
The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
The panel was aware that the burden of proof rests on the NMC, and that the standard
of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. This means that the
Page 10 of 31
facts will be found proved if the panel is satisfied that it was more likely than not that the
incidents occurred as alleged.
The panel heard oral evidence from three witnesses called on behalf of the NMC:
At the time of the events:
• Ms 1: Employed as a Staff Nurse at East Kent Hospitals University NHS
Foundation Trust, William Harvey Hospital, Kent (the Trust).
• Ms 2: At the time of the events in question was employed by East Kent Hospitals
University NHS Foundation Trust as the Clinical Governance Matron for the
Urgent Care and Long Term Conditions Division. Ms 2 began her current role as
Senior Matron at William Harvey Hospital in April 2016.
• Mr 3: Employed as a Staff Nurse at East Kent Hospitals University NHS
Foundation Trust, William Harvey Hospital, Kent (the Trust).
The panel considered that Ms 1 was open and honest with the panel, and tried to assist
the panel to the best of her ability. It considered that she was a credible and reliable
witness.
The panel found Ms 2 was a credible and consistent witness who was detailed and
articulate in her oral evidence. The panel found Ms 2 to be honest and reliable and
knew the limits of her own knowledge.
The panel considered that Mr 3 was an open and honest witness, and was trying to
assist the panel to the best of his ability. He was a reliable and credible witness.
The panel then went on to consider the following charges:
Details of charges: Charge 1:
Page 11 of 31
That you, a registered nurse and working as a band 7 ward manager on Oxford Ward at
William Harvey Hospital and employed by East Kent Universities Hospital NHS
Foundation Trust:
1) Between 8 August 2013 and 22 May 2014 in relation to Electronic Discharge Notifications, acted beyond the scope of your competence by undertaking one or more of the actions set out in schedule 1 on the respective dates listed.
Schedule 1:
Date of EDN form Named Clinician Action taken by registrant
8 January 2014 Michelle McClintock Added Buscopan and
dispensed medication on
the ward
When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 2.
Ms 2 told the panel that it would appear that Miss McClintock has approved the
medications listed in the patient’s discharge notification dated 8 January 2017 as being
appropriate for that patient for those conditions, which included Buscopan medication.
She told the panel that Miss McClintock, who is listed as the “clinician” although she did
not have prescribing rights, authorised Buscopan on the EDN, because it does not look
like a doctor, nurse or therapist had any input on the EDN summaries for the 8 January
2017. Ms 2 explained that it appears Miss McClintock then dispensed the Buscopan on
the ward. Ms 2 told the panel that Miss McClintock did not have the right to prescribe
drugs as she was not a registered Prescriber nurse and had not undertaken further
training to gain this qualification.
Page 12 of 31
Ms 2 told the panel in oral evidence that to be certain of her interpretation of this
evidence she would need the pharmacist who explained how this was to be interpreted
during the course of the investigation, or a member of the IT department at the Trust to
give a clearer picture. Ms 2 told the panel that her findings are as a result of what her
pharmacy colleagues told her, and that they did not give her a full explanation of how
they came to that conclusion. As a result, she could not be certain whether Miss
McClintock added Buscopan to the EDN or whether she has amended an existing entry.
The panel considered that it did not have the evidence of the pharmacist, or the IT
person who explained to Ms 2 how Appendix 7 should be interpreted. The panel was
not provided with sufficient evidence by the NMC that could evidence that Miss
McClintock had added Buscopan, thus acting beyond the scope of her competence in
relation to this EDN.
The panel was therefore not satisfied that this charge is proved on the balance of
probabilities.
Accordingly, the panel found this charge NOT PROVED.
Page 13 of 31
Charge 4: 4) On one or more occasions on unknown dates between 17 July 2013 and 23 May 2014 you incorrectly and/or inappropriately completed and/or amended continuing care checklists. When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr
3.
Ms 1’s evidence is that “The continuing healthcare checklist is a document used for
patients who cannot look after themselves at home and who need support from
residential care or a nursing home…this form is completed by a nurse. The form is then
given to the continuing healthcare team. The…team then make a decision on whether
to approve, reject or alter the recommendation made by the nurse. The continuing
healthcare checklist is made up of three categories. Each category differs in the level of
care required for a patient. Category ‘A’ is very high, meaning that the patient needs
assistance with everything. Category ‘B’ is medium, meaning that the patient needs
assistance with certain things. Category ‘C’ is low, meaning that the patient can do most
things, however needs assistance with the odd task.”
Ms 1 told the panel that on one occasion which occurred prior to 23 May 2014, Miss
McClintock marked a patient (Lady C) as a Category ‘C’ on the continuing healthcare
checklist, and that she knew this because Ms 1 recognised Miss McClintock’s writing.
She told the panel that when Ms 1 questioned Miss McClintock about this, she did not
provide a response, and Ms 1 explained that Miss McClintock did not actually nurse
Lady C.
Ms 1 explained that “Lady C should have been put into Category ‘A’… I was
concerned…that the registrant had put Lady C into Category ‘C’. I was concerned that
Lady C would not receive the appropriate level of follow on care. The risk of harm to
Lady C on Category ‘C’ would be high as her health would be more likely to deteriorate.”
Ms 1 told the panel that Miss McClintock had a tendency to “get patients discharged as
frequently as possible.”
Page 14 of 31
Mr 3 told the panel that there were two or three occasions that he knew of where Miss
McClintock changed the continuing care checklist of a patient from a ‘high’ score (for
example an ‘A’), to a lower score (for example a ‘B’ or a ‘C’).
The panel acknowledged that it had no documentary evidence of a continuing care
checklist in the evidence before it. However, the panel accepted Ms 1’s oral evidence,
which was consistent with her NMC witness statement and the investigatory notes of 23
May 2014.
The panel noted that Ms 1 was able to give a clear recollection of the care needs of
Lady C, and was able to describe specific details about her in relation to her weight,
frame and the fact that she was elderly. The panel noted that Ms 1 was able to explain
why she disputed what Miss McClintock had recorded on the continuing care checklist.
The panel also noted that Ms 1 told the panel that this type of behaviour occurred more
than once on the ward. The panel had sight of the disciplinary transcript dated 23 May
2014, exhibited by Ms 1, where Ms 1 stated in response to questioning as to whether
Miss McClintock’s behaviour is regular that “Yes, it’s quite regular. I’ve had staff tell me
before. And I’ve said she can’t really do that and then I’ve witnessed it once and then
I’ve seen it another three.”
The panel noted that the evidence of Ms 1 was corroborated by that of Mr 3, who stated
that there were two or three occasions where Miss McClintock altered the continuing
care checklist, to reduce the dependency/ complexity of the patients’ care needs.
Accordingly, the panel found that on the balance of probabilities, Miss McClintock on
one or more occasions on unknown dates between 17 July 2013 and 23 May 2014
incorrectly and inappropriately completed and amended continuing care checklists.
Accordingly, the panel found this charge PROVED. Charge 5: 5) Your conduct at charge 4 was dishonest in that you: 5.1. intended to conceal the patient’s/patients’ true continuing care needs; and/or
Page 15 of 31
When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr
3 as outlined in charge 4 above.
The panel had sight of the disciplinary transcript dated 23 May 2014, exhibited by Ms 1,
where Ms 1 stated, “I said Michelle do you know who did this continuing care checklist. I
could see it was her writing. She said but that lady doesn’t have complex nursing needs
so I said to her have you nursed this patient then. She said no but I can tell you she has
got no complex. I said Michelle she’s double incontinent and went through it all. She
said oh but if you put her down as B she’ll be here even longer. But I said that lady has
a right, it’s her safety and welfare and we’re supposed to be here in a caring
environment and she just walked off. And I said to Ms 5 I’m happy to change it for you. I
said you know I have asked her about it and she still wanted to give this lady all C’s
because she didn’t want her sitting on the ward for a few more days…it’s quite regular.
I’ve had staff tell me before. And I’ve said she can’t really do that and then I’ve
witnessed it once just before I saw you and since then I’ve seen another three.”
The panel accepted the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr 3. The panel determined that Miss
McClintock did intend to act dishonestly and conceal patients’ true continuing care
needs.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this charge PROVED.
5.2. intended to expedite the patient’s/patients’ discharge; and/or When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr
3 as outlined above.
The panel noted that Ms 1’s oral evidence was that Miss McClintock was “happy” that
she had more discharges than other wards. The panel noted that in the disciplinary
transcript dated 23 May 2014, exhibited by Ms 1, Ms 1 stated that Miss McClintock
“…still wanted to give this lady all C’s because she didn’t want her sitting on the ward
for a few more days.” The panel found that in this way Miss McClintock intended to
expedite patients’ discharge despite their continuing care needs.
Page 16 of 31
The panel also considered Mr 3’s oral evidence where he told the panel that Miss
McClintock would say to him during his preceptorship, when he would disagree with her
decisions in regards to continuing care check lists that, “I have been doing this for
years, I know how to get the patients out the door.”
The panel accepted the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr 3. The panel determined that Miss
McClintock did intend to act dishonestly and expedite patients’ discharge.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this charge PROVED. 5.3 knew the continuing care checklists were inaccurate. When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 1 and Mr
3, as outlined above.
The panel noted that Ms 1 and Mr 3 both challenged Miss McClintock in her decision to
change the continuing care checklists on more than one occasion. This is evidenced by
Ms 1 and Mr 3’s oral evidence, as well as the evidence from Ms 1 as outlined in the
disciplinary transcript dated 23 May 2014, exhibited by Ms 1.
The panel noted that Mr 3’s evidence was that Miss McClintock would “rewrite
Continuing Care Checklists that Nursing Staff had already completed (so Patients met
the criteria easier). I felt this was not always in the Patients’ best interest and confronted
her several times on forms I had filled in (she had then changed) and was told: “to get
on with it.””
In light of all the evidence the panel has before it, the panel determined that Miss
McClintock knew the continuing care checklists were inaccurate.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this charge PROVED.
Page 17 of 31
Charge 6: 6) On an unknown date between 17 July 2013 and 23 May 2014 you were overheard in a clinical area stating words to the effect as those set out in Schedule 2 in relation to patients and/or colleagues. Schedule 2: a) “they can just shit in their own toilet at home get rid of them so I have a discharge” When considering this charge, the panel took into account the evidence of Ms 1 as well
as the oral evidence of Mr 3.
Ms 1 told the panel that “On one occasion which occurred prior to 23 May 2014 whilst I
was working with the registrant, I heard the registrant say in front of a patient “they can
just shit in their own toilet at home to get rid of them so I’ve got a discharge.” Ms 1
confirmed this in oral evidence. Ms 1 told the panel that when she heard Miss
McClintock say this she was “…within touching distance” of her. Ms 1 told the panel that
it was quite frequent that Miss McClintock would say the exact phrase as set out in
Schedule 2(a).
Mr 3 told the panel in oral evidence that he had heard Miss McClintock say “they can
just shit in their own toilet at home get rid of them so I have a discharge” and that it was
her practice to be quite vulgar and rude in front of other members of staff. He explained
he heard inappropriate language come from Miss McClintock “constantly.” Mr 1 told the
panel that due to the nature of the ward, constant inappropriate language from Miss
McClintock often came about in relation to “people’s toilet habits.”
The panel accepted Ms 1’s evidence and found her evidence was reliable and
consistent with her NMC witness statement. The panel noted that her evidence was
corroborated by the oral evidence of Mr 3, who explained that he had heard Miss
McClintock use the phrase as set out in Schedule 2(a).
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this charge PROVED.
c) “I’m bored, who can we get rid of next?”
Page 18 of 31
The panel determined that there was insufficient information provided to the panel, and
a lack of direct evidence provided by the NMC to prove this charge.
Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, the panel found this charge NOT PROVED.
Page 19 of 31
Submissions on misconduct and impairment: Having announced its findings on all the facts, the panel then moved on to consider
whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct, and if so, whether Miss
McClintock’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The NMC has defined fitness to
practise as a registrant’s suitability to remain on the register unrestricted.
The panel carefully considered the submissions made by Mr Hone on behalf of the
NMC.
As to misconduct, Mr Hone referred the panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (No 2)
[2000] 1 A.C. 311. He explained that misconduct is “a word of general effect, involving
some kind of act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the
circumstances.”
Mr Hone invited the panel to consider that for the following reasons you had breached
the following parts of the NMC Code: 1, 3, 4, 24, 26, 35 and 61. Mr Hone guided the
panel through the relevant facts which support the breaches of the Code. Mr Hone
submitted that Miss McClintock’s conduct was to manipulate the EDN system, to make
discharges her priority rather than appropriate care of patients, she used bad language
in the Trust and was dishonest in her failings. Mr Hone submitted that Miss
McClintock’s failings are serious and Mr Hone invited the panel to find misconduct.
As to impairment, Mr Hone submitted for the following reasons that Miss McClintock is
currently impaired on the grounds of both public protection and public interest.
Mr Hone submitted that whilst Miss McClintock has made admissions to some of the
charges, she has not shown insight or remorse for her actions. He submitted that Miss
McClintock had abused her leadership position for at least a period of 8/9 months, and
created an environment where patient discharge was a priority over patient care.
Page 20 of 31
Mr Hone referred the panel to the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant EWHC (Grant) and
referred to elements (a)-(d) of that test. He submitted that Miss McClintock has
breached all four limbs of that test, and that she is currently impaired.
The panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
Panel’s consideration on misconduct: The panel, in reaching its decisions regarding misconduct, had regard to public
protection and the wider public interest. This includes the declaring and upholding of
proper standards of behaviour and public confidence in the profession and the NMC as
its regulator. The panel accepted that there was no burden or standard of proof at this
stage and exercised its own professional judgement.
When determining whether the facts found proved amount to misconduct, the panel had
regard to the terms of the 2008 NMC Code.
The 2008 Code contains underlying principles that guide the nursing profession and are
in place to protect the public and to ensure that proper standards of the profession are
upheld. The panel has reminded itself that registrants are personally accountable, under
the relevant Code, for acts and omissions in their practice.
The panel was of the view that Miss McClintock’s actions did fall significantly short of
the standards expected of a registered nurse, and many of her actions amounted to a
breach of the 2008 Code which was in force at the time of the events in question.
In particular from the preamble:
“The people in your care must be able to trust you with their health and wellbeing
To justify that trust, you must
• make the care of people your first concern, treating them as individuals and
respecting their dignity
• work with others to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of those in your
Page 21 of 31
care, their families and carers, and the wider community
• provide a high standard of practice and care at all times
• be open and honest, act with integrity and uphold the reputation of your profession.
As a professional, you are personally accountable for actions and omissions in your
practice, and must always be able to justify your decisions.”
In particular from the numbered standards:
1 You must treat people as individuals and respect their dignity.
3 You must treat people kindly and considerately.
4 You must act as an advocate for those in your care, helping them to access
relevant health and social care, information and support.
24 You must work cooperatively within teams and respect the skills, expertise and
contributions of your colleagues.
26 You must consult and take advice from colleagues when appropriate.
27 You must treat your colleagues fairly…
35 You must deliver care based on the best available evidence or best practice.
39 You must recognise and work within the limits of your competence.
42 You must keep clear and accurate records of the…assessments you make
57 You must not abuse your privileged position for your own ends.
61 You must uphold the reputation of your profession at all times.”
The panel was mindful that a breach of the Code did not lead to an automatic finding of
misconduct.
The panel considered all the charges found proved at the facts stage, as well as those
found proved by Miss McClintock’s admissions. The panel also noted that in the NMC
bundle there was a written response from Miss McClintock which appears to have been
provided at her disciplinary hearing on 8 July 2014.
The panel considered that Miss McClintock had encouraged staff who were more junior
than her to sign prescriptions when they were not authorised to do so. The panel noted
that Miss McClintock had abused her position of seniority in the Trust to influence others
Page 22 of 31
with less experience than her. The panel determined that Miss McClintock did not
provide adequate care to patients by expediting patients’ discharge, inappropriately
completed continuing care check lists, and also amended them. Miss McClintock
practised beyond the scope of her competence in amending Electronic Discharge
Notifications (EDN).
The panel considered that Miss McClintock, in repeatedly dismissing the concerns of
others, dishonestly pursued her own agenda to improve the Trust’s discharge rate. The
panel found that Miss McClintock compromised patient care needs by inaccurately
completing documentation. Miss McClintock also used inappropriate language whilst on
duty in clinical areas.
Therefore, in the panel’s judgement, all the charges found proved amounted,
individually and collectively, to misconduct.
Panel’s decision on impairment:
The panel next went on to consider whether Miss McClintock’s fitness to practise is
currently impaired by reason of her misconduct.
In considering impairment, the panel had regard to all the relevant information available
to it and to the submissions made by Mr Hone on behalf of the NMC, as well as the
Standard Directions Form provided by the Royal College of Nursing on Miss
McClintock’s behalf. The panel also took into account the advice of the legal assessor.
The panel, in reaching its conclusion in relation to Miss McClintock’s misconduct, took
account of the guidance given by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth Shipman Report, cited
with approval by Mrs Justice Cox in the case of Grant. Accordingly, the panel
considered whether Miss McClintock had in the past and/or was liable in the future to
act in such a way as to:
• Put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
• Bring the profession into disrepute; and/or
• Breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession; and/or
Page 23 of 31
• Act dishonestly.
The panel considered that all four limbs of that guidance were engaged by Miss
McClintock’s serious and wide-ranging misconduct.
The panel considered that while there was no reported actual harm caused to patients,
the potential for patient harm was significant. For example, the failure by Miss
McClintock to provide the appropriate score for patients’ continuing care checklists
meant that patients were likely to have been discharged to an inappropriate setting and
therefore possible deprived of appropriate continuing care. A further example of
potential harm to patients was acting beyond her competence by amending EDNs when
Miss McClintock was not a Nurse Prescriber and therefore not authorised to do so.
The panel determined that Miss McClintock’s wide ranging failings seriously
undermined the confidence of the public and patients in the nursing profession. The
panel considered that Miss McClintock has brought the profession into disrepute by
acting dishonestly on several occasions, swearing whilst on duty in front of staff with the
potential for patients and visitors to overhear her, and acting beyond the scope of her
competence whilst undertaking a leadership role at the Trust. The panel considered that
Miss McClintock has breached fundamental tenets of the nursing profession of integrity
and trustworthiness.
The panel considered that whilst Miss McClintock has made some admissions at the
earliest opportunity in May 2016, the panel has received no material evidence of insight,
reflection, remorse or remediation. In the absence of any such information before it, the
panel determined that it could not rationally conclude that Miss McClintock would not act
in the same manner in the future, should similar circumstances arise. As such, it
determined that there was a real risk of repetition and Miss McClintock was liable in the
future, to breach fundamental tenets of the profession, damage the reputation of the
nursing profession or place patients at risk of harm and act dishonestly.
The panel therefore decided that a finding of impairment was necessary on the grounds
of public protection and in the wider public interest. The panel was in no doubt that Miss
Page 24 of 31
McClintock’s actions had the potential to cause harm to patients and bring the
profession into disrepute. Her actions could undermine public confidence in the
profession and in the NMC as its regulator if a finding of impairment were not made in
all the circumstances of this case.
In all the circumstances, the panel has concluded that Miss McClintock’s fitness to
practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct.
Page 25 of 31
Determination on sanction:
Having determined that Miss McClintock’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of
her misconduct, the panel considered what sanction, if any, it should impose in relation
to her registration.
Mr Hone invited the panel to have regard to the NMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance
(“ISG”) as published in September 2016. He submitted that sanction was a matter for
the panel’s own professional judgement. He outlined some of the mitigating and
aggravating features in Miss McClintock’s case.
The panel has borne in mind that any sanction imposed must be appropriate and
proportionate and, although not intended to be punitive in its effect, may have such
consequences. The panel had careful regard to the ISG. It recognised that the decision
on sanction is a matter for the panel, exercising its own independent judgement.
The panel found the following aggravating features:
• Multiple severe breaches of the Code;
• Breaches of fundamental tenets of the profession as outlined in the Preamble of
the Code;
• No material evidence of insight, remorse or remediation;
• Miss McClintock abused a position of authority as a Band 7 Ward Manager,
including attempting to influence more junior members of staff;
• Miss McClintock’s misconduct continued for a 9 month period.
• Miss McClintock dishonestly pursued her own agenda, ignoring the concerns of
her colleagues, in order to improve the ward’s discharge rate.
The panel identified the following mitigating features:
• Miss McClintock has engaged to some extent with the NMC, by way of
completing an SDF dated 10 May 2016 and has recently emailed an NMC Case
Officer on 3 February 2017;
Page 26 of 31
• The panel has no evidence of actual patient harm;
• Miss McClintock has made some admissions to the charges at the earliest
opportunity;
• The panel has no evidence that Miss McClintock has had any prior NMC fitness
to practise referrals during her long career;
• Miss McClintock’s ability to amend EDNs in the capacity as a Nurse Prescriber
was a system error rather than a deliberate act on her part;
• At the time of the disciplinary hearing, Miss McClintock raised health issues and
specific personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct;
• Miss McClintock may have felt that she was under pressure to expedite patients’
discharge more quickly from the Trust.
The panel first considered whether to take no action but concluded that, given its
findings on misconduct and impairment, this would be inappropriate because it would
not serve to protect the public by restricting Miss McClintock’s practice, nor would it take
into account the wider public interest in this case. The panel decided that it would be
neither proportionate nor sufficient to take no further action.
Next, in considering whether a caution order would be appropriate in the circumstances,
the panel took into account the ISG, which states that a caution order may be
appropriate where ‘the case is at the lower end of the spectrum of impaired fitness to
practice and the panel wishes to mark that the behaviour was unacceptable and must
not happen again.’ The panel considered that Miss McClintock’s misconduct was not at
the lower end of the spectrum and further, that a caution order would not restrict Miss
McClintock’s nursing practice in any way. A caution order would therefore not
adequately protect the public or the public interest.
The panel next considered whether placing conditions of practice on Miss McClintock’s
registration would be a sufficient and appropriate response to the charges found proved.
The panel was mindful that any conditions imposed must be proportionate, measurable
and workable. The panel took into account the ISG, in particular:
“63.1 Will imposing conditions be sufficient to protect patients and the public interest?”
Page 27 of 31
The panel noted that Miss McClintock made an offer to a disciplinary hearing panel at
the Trust on 8 July 2014 that she would “…be willing to do anything deemed necessary
by the panel to make amends”. The panel considered that although there are some
identifiable areas of Miss McClintock’s practice that could be remediated, there would
be others that would be hard to remediate, for example dishonesty found proved in
relation to two charges. The panel bore in mind that this case concerned attitudinal
issues, in that Miss McClintock pursued her own agenda to improve her Ward’s
discharge rate, and that in this respect, her behaviour is not readily susceptible to
conditions. Furthermore, the panel considered that a conditions of practice order would
not satisfy the wider public interest in this case.
The panel then went on to consider whether a suspension order would be an
appropriate sanction. Paragraphs 66-68 of the ISG indicates that a suspension order
would be appropriate where (but not limited to):
“66.1 Does the seriousness of the case require temporary removal from the register?
66.2 Will a period of suspension be sufficient to protect patients and the public interest?
68.1 A single instance of misconduct but where a lesser sanction is not sufficient.
68.2 No evidence of harmful deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems.
68.3 No evidence of repetition of behaviour since the incident.
68.4 The panel is satisfied that the nurse or midwife has insight and does not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour.”
The panel was of the view that Miss McClintock’s actions were not isolated incidents in
themselves, but that her failings occurred over a 9 month period, with two instances of
dishonesty. In particular repeated conduct over a prolonged period of time gives rise to
a significant risk of repetition which is amplified by the lack of material insight or any
information of any steps taken by Miss McClintock to attempt to remedy her failings.
The panel considered that some of the charges relate to dishonesty, and demonstrate
an attitudinal issue on Miss McClintock’s part. The panel was particularly concerned
Page 28 of 31
about the dishonesty in this case, which made it likely that harm would follow, indicating
that Miss McClintock was not making patient care her first priority. She also attempted
to encourage more junior colleagues to adopt a similar approach at the onset of their
career, which the panel found concerning, considering that she acted as a mentor for Mr
3 during his preceptorship period and was acting in the senior role of Ward Manager.
The panel was mindful that although there is no evidence before it to suggest that she
has repeated such dishonest behaviours since these events, it had found that she was
liable to do so. The panel noted that Miss McClintock has had some time since the
offences were committed in 2013/2014 to reflect on her actions, yet despite this length
of time it is unfortunate that there is no information provided by her to this panel for the
purpose of this hearing to indicate any material insight or remediation on her part.
The panel concluded that in those circumstances, a suspension order, whilst it
would protect the public whilst it was in force, would not be likely to result in any
development of insight on the part of Miss McClintock or any remediation by her
of the failings involved in this case.
The panel determined that Miss McClintock’s conduct amounted to a serious departure
from the standards expected of a registered nurse. The panel determined that the
behaviour in this case was so serious that a suspension order would not be sufficient to
mark the charges found proved in order to satisfy the public interest in this case. The
panel considered that while it would prevent Miss McClintock from practising as a nurse,
it would not be the necessary or proportionate response in all the circumstances of this
case.
The panel then went on to consider a striking off order. The panel took note of the
following paragraphs of the ISG:
“71.2 Is the seriousness of the case incompatible with ongoing registration (see paragraph 66 above for the factors to take into account when considering seriousness)?
71.3 Can public confidence in the professions and the NMC be sustained if the nurse or midwife is not removed from the register?
Page 29 of 31
72 This sanction is likely to be appropriate when the behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional, which may involve any of the following (this list is not exhaustive): 72.1 Serious departure from the relevant professional standards as set out in key standards, guidance and advice including (but not limited to): 72.1.1 The code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives … 72.2 Doing harm to others or behaving in such a way that could foreseeably result in harm to others, particularly patients or other people the nurse or midwife comes into contact with in a professional capacity, either deliberately, recklessly, negligently or through incompetence, particularly where there is a continuing risk to patients. Harm may include physical, emotional and financial harm. The panel will need to consider the seriousness of the harm in coming to its decision 72.3 Abuse of position, abuse of trust, or violation of the rights of patients, particularly in relation to vulnerable patients 72.6 Dishonesty, especially where persistent or covered up
72.7 Persistent lack of insight into seriousness of actions or consequences”
The panel considered that Miss McClintock’s actions were such significant departures
from the standards expected of a registered nurse, and were so serious in nature, that
they were fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the register. The panel was
of the view that members of the public would not consider that a nurse who has
demonstrated repeated dishonest conduct, as well as a serious disregard for the care of
vulnerable patients, linked with wide ranging failings, should be allowed to remain on
the register.
Balancing all of these factors and after taking into account all the evidence before it
during this case, the panel determined that the only sanction which would be sufficient
to satisfy the public interest in this case was a striking-off order.
The panel considered that such an order was necessary to mark the seriousness of the
misconduct, in order to declare and uphold proper professional standards for registered
nurses and maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
Page 30 of 31
The panel directs the registrar to strike Miss McClintock off the register. The effect of
this order is that the NMC register will show that Miss McClintock has been struck off
the register.
Page 31 of 31
Decision on interim order and reasons: The panel has considered the submission made by Mr Hone that an interim suspension
order should be made on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of the public
and is otherwise in the public interest. He submitted that an interim suspension order for
a period of 18 months is appropriate to allow for any potential appeal period.
The panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
The panel was satisfied that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the
public and was otherwise in the public interest. In reaching the decision to impose an
interim order, the panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the
reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order. The panel decided to impose an
interim suspension order for the same reasons as it imposed the substantive order. To
do otherwise would be incompatible with its earlier findings. The panel did not consider
that an interim conditions of practice order was appropriate in this case for the same
reasons as given in the determination on sanction.
The period of this interim suspension order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of
an appeal to be made and determined. If no appeal is made then the interim order will
be replaced by the suspension order 28 days after Miss McClintock is sent the decision
of this hearing in writing.
That concludes this determination.
This decision will be confirmed to Miss McClintock in writing.