Band 7 nurse is struck off for providing incorrect revalidation information

ftp

Local Care Force provides all its Nurses with free revalidation support, discussion and confirmation.

Stephanie Jones-Berry

20 August 2018

 

Lesley Pollero claimed she had a reflective discussion with her line manager

 

A band 7 community nurse has been struck off the register for incorrectly stating she had fulfilled revalidation requirements.

Lesley Pollero, who had been a nurse for the past 20 years, is now subject to an 18-month interim suspension order to allow time for an appeal.

The NMC panel pointed out that the nurse had not sought to mislead the regulator.

Ms Pollero was a palliative care clinical nurse for Medway Community Healthcare in Kent when the actions regarding her revalidation took place in March 2016, and she was later referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).

Reflective discussions

She was one of the first nurses required to revalidate under the NMC requirements introduced in April 2016. Revalidation requires all registrants to have a reflective discussion with another registrant about five written reflective accounts relating to their continuing professional development (CPD). Registrants are also required to secure confirmation from another person that they have met revalidation requirements and to have undertaken at least 35 hours of CPD every three years, among other things.

Ms Pollero stated on her online revalidation form that she had had a reflective discussion with her line manager and had received ‘confirmation’ from the same colleague, but these claims were found not to be the case.

Lack of clarity

The nurse later accepted she did not follow the NMC’s revalidation process, but said she believed it was permissible for her not to complete all revalidation documents and reflections because the NMC had not asked to check her paperwork.

The NMC said that although Ms Pollero may have had conversations with her line manager, these were ‘not reflective discussions in line with the NMC guidance’ and she would have known this.

The regulator said: ‘The NMC accepts there was lack of clarity around the revalidation process, as it had been newly introduced. However, it is the NMC’s case that Mrs Pollero had not received confirmation from her confirmer.’

While the NMC panel found she had not deliberately sought to mislead the registrar, it said that to protect the integrity of the register, and maintain public confidence in the NMC as a regulator, the only appropriate order was to remove Ms Pollero from the register.

CPD requirements

The number of nurses who did not meet CPD requirements for revalidation went up by almost 50% in 2017-18, to 114.

 

NMC director of registration and revalidation Emma Broadbent said since revalidation was introduced more than 400,000 nurses and midwives had met the CPD requirements and feedback from registrants was it had been a ‘positive experience’.

She said: ‘There is no evidence to suggest that they are misrepresenting the number of CPD hours they have undertaken on their forms. Before nurses and midwives can revalidate they must provide evidence to their confirmer that they have met all the requirements.’

In terms of how many nurses have faced action from the regulator because of discrepancies in their revalidation, an NMC spokesperson said:

‘Our FtP data does not contain a specific category relating to fraudulent or inaccurate revalidation applications,’ they said.

‘However we have looked at some categories where cases like this may appear and since January 2017 there are less than five that are relevant to this.’

Professional responsibilities

Medway Community Healthcare (MCH) CIC director of adult community services and chief nurse Helen Martin said: ‘As a result of this case, we will be further reminding staff of their professional responsibilities.

‘When the NMC revalidation requirements were first introduced, MCH provided comprehensive guidance and support to staff and managers.’

AmeliaBand 7 nurse is struck off for providing incorrect revalidation information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *