英国护理和助产委员会在行使其纪律职能时如何应用指导

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Cathal T. Gallagher PhD, Fatima Saleem MPharm
{"title":"英国护理和助产委员会在行使其纪律职能时如何应用指导","authors":"Cathal T. Gallagher PhD,&nbsp;Fatima Saleem MPharm","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00080-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is responsible for addressing concerns about UK-registered nurses and midwives through its fitness-to-practice process.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess whether the NMC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into nurse misconduct, as required by the determinations in the appeal cases of <em>Cohen v. General Medical Council</em> (GMC), <em>Zygmunt v. GMC</em>, and <em>Azzam v. GMC</em>, and to assess whether the circumstances described in its <em>Sanctions Guidance</em> warranting the suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register lead to that outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Cases between July and September 2021 that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were identified and included in this study. Specific factors, including patient safety and dishonesty, included when determining impairment of fitness to practice were compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Pearson’s χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifty-nine cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining a sanction after first being factored into the consideration of impairment. Where the aggravating factors of dishonesty or risk of harm to patients or the public were identified as an aspect of a nurse’s misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed than when they were absent.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The NMC does, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice; however, we were unable to demonstrate that dishonesty or risk of harm were more likely to result in suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":"13 3","pages":"Pages 52-59"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How the United Kingdom’s Nursing and Midwifery Council Applies Guidance When Exercising Its Disciplinary Functions\",\"authors\":\"Cathal T. Gallagher PhD,&nbsp;Fatima Saleem MPharm\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00080-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is responsible for addressing concerns about UK-registered nurses and midwives through its fitness-to-practice process.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess whether the NMC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into nurse misconduct, as required by the determinations in the appeal cases of <em>Cohen v. General Medical Council</em> (GMC), <em>Zygmunt v. GMC</em>, and <em>Azzam v. GMC</em>, and to assess whether the circumstances described in its <em>Sanctions Guidance</em> warranting the suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register lead to that outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Cases between July and September 2021 that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were identified and included in this study. Specific factors, including patient safety and dishonesty, included when determining impairment of fitness to practice were compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Pearson’s χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Fifty-nine cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining a sanction after first being factored into the consideration of impairment. Where the aggravating factors of dishonesty or risk of harm to patients or the public were identified as an aspect of a nurse’s misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed than when they were absent.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The NMC does, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice; however, we were unable to demonstrate that dishonesty or risk of harm were more likely to result in suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 52-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825622000801\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825622000801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

护理和助产委员会(NMC)负责通过其健康实践过程解决对英国注册护士和助产士的担忧。目的评估NMC是否按照Cohen诉通用医学委员会(GMC)、Zygmunt诉GMC和Azzam诉GMC上诉案件的裁决要求,在其审议护士不当行为的各个阶段考虑了相关因素,并评估其制裁指南中描述的暂停或将护士从执业登记册中除名的情况是否导致了这一结果。方法确定2021年7月至9月期间的加重情节被认为严重到需要转移的病例,并将其纳入本研究。具体的因素,包括病人的安全和不诚实,在确定是否适合行医的损害时,将其与确定制裁的严重性时的后续考虑进行比较。使用Pearson χ2和Fisher精确检验来检测数据预期分布的任何变化。结果59例符合纳入标准。在首先考虑损害因素后,在确定制裁时,所考虑的四个因素中的每一个都更有可能被听到。当不诚实的加重因素或对病人或公众造成伤害的风险被确定为护士不当行为的一个方面时,停职或撤职的制裁并不比他们缺席时更有可能施加。结论NMC在审议妨碍执业能力时,一般会参考高等法院上诉案件的裁决;然而,我们无法证明不诚实或伤害风险更有可能导致暂停或从执业登记册中删除护士。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How the United Kingdom’s Nursing and Midwifery Council Applies Guidance When Exercising Its Disciplinary Functions

Background

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is responsible for addressing concerns about UK-registered nurses and midwives through its fitness-to-practice process.

Purpose

To assess whether the NMC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into nurse misconduct, as required by the determinations in the appeal cases of Cohen v. General Medical Council (GMC), Zygmunt v. GMC, and Azzam v. GMC, and to assess whether the circumstances described in its Sanctions Guidance warranting the suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register lead to that outcome.

Methods

Cases between July and September 2021 that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were identified and included in this study. Specific factors, including patient safety and dishonesty, included when determining impairment of fitness to practice were compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Pearson’s χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests were used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data.

Results

Fifty-nine cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining a sanction after first being factored into the consideration of impairment. Where the aggravating factors of dishonesty or risk of harm to patients or the public were identified as an aspect of a nurse’s misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed than when they were absent.

Conclusion

The NMC does, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice; however, we were unable to demonstrate that dishonesty or risk of harm were more likely to result in suspension or removal of a nurse from the practice register.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
50
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Nursing Regulation (JNR), the official journal of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN®), is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, academic and professional journal. It publishes scholarly articles that advance the science of nursing regulation, promote the mission and vision of NCSBN, and enhance communication and collaboration among nurse regulators, educators, practitioners, and the scientific community. The journal supports evidence-based regulation, addresses issues related to patient safety, and highlights current nursing regulatory issues, programs, and projects in both the United States and the international community. In publishing JNR, NCSBN''s goal is to develop and share knowledge related to nursing and other healthcare regulation across continents and to promote a greater awareness of regulatory issues among all nurses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信