Annual accountability hearing with the Nursing and Midwifery Council - Health Committee Contents


Conclusions and recommendations


Introduction

1.   The NMC has requested Department of Health support for further amendments to the legislation that governs its operation. The Committee broadly supports this request, as improvement to the performance of the NMC in some key areas is hampered by its current legal framework. The Government must prioritise this work if it wishes to see further improvement in the performance of the NMC. (Paragraph 3)

2.  The Committee welcomes the improved financial performance of the NMC in recent years, but is concerned about the affordability of the registration fee for many lower paid registrants. We would urge the NMC to avoid further fee rises and to consider fee reductions for new entrants to the register. (Paragraph 4)

3.  The NMC is now leaving behind its previous organisational and financial instability, and is improving in many areas of its work. There remains however a significant amount of work to be done in order for it to be an effective regulator that has public protection as its principal concern. (Paragraph 9)

4.  Although, therefore, the Committee recognises that the NMC is developing a higher level of operational competence, it remains concerned that the leadership function of the NMC remains underdeveloped, particularly in the areas of fitness to practise, revalidation, education and training and proactive regulation. The Committee hopes that the NMC will embrace more ambitious objectives for professional leadership, some of which are described in this report. (Paragraph 10)

Fitness to practise

5.  The Committee is very concerned about the recent dramatic rise in the numbers of NMC referrals of nurses and midwives, and that NMC reports make it difficult to distinguish between referrals made about nurses or midwives. We are surprised that the NMC has no clear answer to why referrals are increasing, and recommend that the NMC undertakes urgent research to establish the reasons for this increase. This data could and should be used to support the development of revalidation and a more proactive approach to regulation. (Paragraph 13)

6.  The Committee is also concerned that an analysis of ethnicity data on the nursing and midwifery register is still not available despite having made assurances that this would take place in 2010. Of more concern is the fact that, according to its own records, the NMC is still not recording ethnicity or other diversity monitoring in fitness to practise cases. Without this, neither the professions nor the public can have confidence that the NMC discharges its functions in a manner that is fair and equitable to minorities. (Paragraph 14)

7.  Following our earlier report into complaints and litigation, the Committee remains very concerned about the existence of low standards of basic nursing care in our acute hospitals and care homes, which appear to be in breach of the code of conduct for nurses and midwives. We are particularly concerned about this in light of the ongoing inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, the Winterbourne View scandal and the recent Health Service Ombudsman report into care of the elderly in hospital. (Paragraph 17)

8.  This evidence presents a challenge to the NMC which is responsible for professional standards in the nursing and midwifery professions. Based on its existing guidance on care of the elderly, we propose that the NMC should develop a programme of action to deliver a demonstrable improvement in outcomes for this vulnerable group. (Paragraph 18)

9.  Furthermore, the NMC needs to send a clear signal to nurses and midwives that they are at as much risk of being investigated by their regulator for failing to report concerns about a fellow registrant as they are from poor practice on their own part. (Paragraph 19)

10.  The Government is proposing to have one Act of Parliament that establishes the core functions of professional regulators, leaving them to decide how they discharge these. The Committee welcome the Governments plans for simplification of the legislation that underpins professional regulation in the UK. (Paragraph 22)

11.  However, in the light of criticisms by the CHRE about "significant weaknesses" with the process, the Committee urges the Government to bring forward amendments as soon as possible to the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 so that the NMC can streamline its fitness to practise procedures. (Paragraph 23)

12.  The Committee supports the proposal that nurses and midwives be able to voluntarily remove themselves from the register. However, where concerns have been raised about a nurse or midwife seeking erasure, or where an investigation is taking place into fitness to practise, erasure must only take place with the consent of the complainant and on publication of the full details of the case against the registrant. (Paragraph 25)

Revalidation of nurses

13.  The current standard for re-registration—completing 450 hours of practice and 35 hours of professional development—is wholly inadequate, as this tells patients and the public nothing about the quality of nursing and midwifery practice undertaken by the registrant. There is also no routine assessment of whether nurses and midwives have even met this minimal standard. The NMC instead relies on honesty within the profession and "whistle-blowing" when registrants are dishonest. For many nurses and midwives this may well be adequate, but for a significant minority, including those most at risk of manifesting low professional standards, it may not be. (Paragraph 31)

14.  The Committee supports the NMC's risk-based approach to the current re-registration process. However, we are concerned that there are nurses and midwives who could be failing to meet the already unacceptably low standards for re-registration but who do not come to the attention of the NMC and are therefore re-registered unchallenged. Registrants must feel that their regulator could call in their re-registration evidence at any time and as such the NMC should undertake an annual random audit of the registration renewal evidence supplied by a sample of registrants. (Paragraph 32)

15.  The Committee will monitor progress against the 2014 deadline for the introduction of revalidation by the NMC at subsequent accountability hearings. (Paragraph 33)

16.  Revalidation of nurses and midwives is a significant undertaking that the NMC is progressing with due caution. The Committee notes that statutory supervision of midwives is a tried and trusted means of assuring the quality of midwifery practice. The NMC should consider the costs and benefits of extending the statutory supervision framework as a potential means of delivering an effective revalidation process for all registrants. (Paragraph 39)

17.  The NMC needs to ensure that it monitors the number of nurses and midwives who retire, leave the profession, have conditions placed on their practice or fail revalidation. It must develop and share this evidence with employers to ensure that the future workforce planning includes the developing outcome of the revalidation process. (Paragraph 40)

18.  The Department of Health must clarify how it will maintain the continuity of statutory supervision of midwives through Local Supervising Authorities once Strategic Health Authorities are abolished. (Paragraph 41)

19.  Nurses and midwives from the European Economic Area and Switzerland seeking to practice in the UK cannot routinely be language and competence tested by the NMC. The NMC, along with other professional regulators and the Government is working towards resolution of this with partner organisations across Europe. The Committee takes the view that the current legal framework is at odds with good clinical practice, which is clearly unacceptable. (Paragraph 45)

20.  The Government, the NMC and the other health professions regulators must now grasp this as a significant risk to patients and dramatically pick up the pace in resolving or mitigating it. (Paragraph 46)

21.  The Committee is concerned that waiting for regulatory action at a European level will expose patients to a high risk over an unacceptably long period of time. We would like to see prompt action on this matter along the lines taken by the GMC where Responsible Officers sign off a doctor as competent and fit to practise. (Paragraph 47)

Proactive regulation

22.  We welcome the NMC's initiative in opening proactive investigations into registrants without a formal referral from an employer, a member of the public or another professional. (Paragraph 50)

23.  The NMC's plans for investigation of and intervention in a healthcare organisation where concerns are being raised is a creative and interesting approach to regulating what is a large group of professionals working across a variety of settings. It offers the NMC another tool to strengthen public protection. (Paragraph 55)

24.  We do feel however that whilst the power to look at the quality of educational environments gives the NMC "a foot in the door", clear power must be established in law for further expansion of this role, and we encourage the Government and the NMC to work together to develop this approach. The Committee would particularly like to see the NMC responding to trends in outcome and complaints data from NHS and social care providers. (Paragraph 56)

The future of regulation

25.  As previously mentioned, the Committee has ongoing concerns about the care and treatment of older people both in hospitals and care homes. Of particular concern to the Committee is the lack of regulation of a range of groups who undertake many basic nursing care tasks. (Paragraph 63)

26.  The Committee endorses mandatory statutory regulation of healthcare assistants and support workers and we believe that this is the only approach which maximises public protection. The Committee notes that the Government intends to give powers to the relevant regulators to establish voluntary registers for non-regulated professionals and workers, but would urge it to see healthcare assistants, support workers and assistant practitioners as exceptions to this approach who should be subject to mandatory statutory regulation. However, the NMC needs to make significant improvements in the conduct of its existing core functions (such as in how it manages fitness to practise cases) before powers to register these groups are handed to it. (Paragraph 64)


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 26 July 2011