On Monday 16th September 2024 I alongside 6 others were copied into an email to David Warren - the Chair of Council at The Nursing and Midwifery Council, alongside another of his colleagues from Person A. ***

"To the NMC: when you read this I should, if all has gone to plan, be dead. You are not the only reason, but be assured, you were the final and most massive straw. If losing my life is worth getting an NMC that is competent and what the nurses deserve (in other words, not this NMC) it's a fine price to pay. 

My accusations of data malpractice may be wrong but they are made in good faith and deserve an investigation you have not done nor are clearly able to do. If I was wrong you could have shown it with far greater ease (and much lower cost) then your simple blanket denials and stonewalling. Your upper tiers are wilfully incompetent; you preserve that incompetence for the sake of keeping your jobs and to the cost of those you regulate. You are incompetent to the point of corruption. "

This was a member of staff told us he whistleblew in regards to alleged data malpractice at the NMC. This doesn't come as a surprise to us, because our members tell us of GDPR breaches almost weekly and was also reported in mainstream press earlier this year ! Sadly it appears this is not a new issue - in Feb 2013 the Information Commissioner Office issued a £150k fine to the NMC for a data breach. Like many of the themes we have seen raised recently - history keeps repeating itself...

Following person A's email, the NMC responded immediately to all of us to assure they had followed their safeguarding procedures, escalated to the police, who visited and secured help. Person A was taken to hospital where they are still receiving care. 

I emailed David Warren and asked:

"... Can you confirm what ongoing safeguarding you have put in place for xxx. To Mr David Warren particularly - I would hope that a formal investigation into the treatment of this person will now occur under your oversight to ensure the NMC has done everything appropriately and properly Yours sincerely..."

His response was as follows:

"We followed up immediately with the emergency services on receipt of x’s email on Monday morning.   We subsequently received confirmation that x was safe, as you know.   It is now right that x should receive the help of healthcare professionals.    I have been in separate personal communication with x but for obvious reasons I have not copied this to the wider group copied in on his earlier email.

 Safeguarding procedures have been followed throughout.  All current and former colleagues are supported through any internal and external processes of which they are part.   The NMC Safeguarding Team have advised that no external reporting is required at this time, but the teams will also reflect on the approach internally and any learning there may be for us relating to x’s experience."

Whilst we agree that in the immediacy of this incident the NMC followed their safeguarding procedures, escalating immediately the issue of concern, Mr Warren is yet again missing the point. Person A alleges that when they whistleblew they were subjected to harassment and bullying, again a common theme raised recently by the other 2 whistleblowers leading to recent culture review. Person A has told us and others that on the 26th January, via ACAS, they were asked by the NMC if they were in mind to agree settlement. At this point person A refused to settle stating they would not be "bought off". The process continued to Employment Tribunal but after speaking to Rise Associates during their information gathering for their investigation and subsequent report, they were told that they had done their best and perhaps it would be best to agree to a settlement. At this point the NMC refused to resume discussions about a settlement. The case continued to employment tribunal in August this year. Person A impression of judge's comments that the judge recognised the whistleblowing element, he could not determine that the NMC did anything unlawful in terms of employment, so the ET was lost. 

As Person A pointed out in his email -" you were the final and most massive straw". There is currently no robust risk assessment carried out by the NMC - no determination of whether triggers may pose a risk to life and when individuals do notify the NMC they are experiencing suicidal tendencies little is done and certainly no lessons learnt. What measures had David Warren and his team done in recent months to assess any risk Person A may pose? Following the ET, did anyone from the NMC follow up with Person A to check in and ensure they were safe?

So far this year we have escalated a number of registrant's to the NMC who will never nurse again and wish to go for Agreed Removal in order to minimise further risk to their mental health and life. In all occasions the NMC have refused removal and insisted it being in the public interest to continue to hearing. In one letter from the Assistant Registrar in Feb this year she stated " Public interest in having a hearing outweighs the potential risk of harm to the registrant " In what world do we live where an unseen "public interest" outweighs any known harm to a nurse!

According to the Charities Commission, as a trustee, David Warren holds personal responsibility. They state in their guidance that:

Every trustee should have clear oversight of how safeguarding and protecting people from harm are managed within their charity. This means you need to monitor your performance, not just using statistics, but with supporting information, such as qualitative reports. This will help you to understand common themes, identify risks and gaps so you can ensure they are addressed."

If you change the way you work, such as working in a new area or in a different way, you should:

review your current policies and make sure they are suitable
consider whether any extra policies are needed to cover any new situations or risks
record these discussions and decisions as part of your risk management procedures
 

As part of fulfilling your trustee duties whether working online or in person, you must take reasonable steps to protect from harm people who come into contact with your charity. This includes:

- people who benefit from your charity's work

- staff

- volunteers

- other people who come into contact with your charity through its work. 

and yet - harm is continually caused and no action is taken.

It is time for the NMC to be forced to ensure they have robust safeguarding measures in place to minimise the risk of harm and when known harm is being caused, as we have shown with a number of registrants, safe mediation occurs so an individual's life is put at foremost priority.

A few weeks ago we were contacted by the partner of a nurse undergoing FtP and desperate for it to conclude with agreed removal. He previously had an agreement from the NMC that agreed removal could occur and this was then retracted. The registrant has also previously been told there was no case to answer - again retracted. The registrant's partner has provided 4 separate in-depth psychiatric reports to the NMC, that clearly state ongoing process will present a very high risk of suicide and that if he were not allowed to remove himself voluntarily from the register this is likely to have high risk of harm. The NMC response is that they require another medical report and also need proof that this partner has power of attorney to work on behalf of the registrant. The registrant is not well enough to instruct a representative.

This in humane treatment has to stop

David Warren needs to either take decisive action or step aside so another can do so.

***Person A has consented to their experience being shared in the hope this will shame the NMC into making drastic changes that improve things for the registrants they regulate, their members of staff and the public who they deem to protect***