This site is intended for healthcare professionals only

Concern over time limit on FtP trials

Written by: | Published:

The NMC is concerned over a time limit on FtP The NMC is concerned over a time limit on FtP

The proposed five-year time limit for Fitness to Practice (FtP) hearings has sparked concern from the NMC.

The proposal is part of the government's response to the draft Regulation of Health and Social Care Professions Bill, which was published by the Law Commission in April 2014. The change in legislation would enable the NMC to introduce a range of reforms on how nurses and other healthcare professionals are regulated. Under the proposals, the NMC would be unable to follow up with a FtP hearing five years after the accusation had been made.

An NMC spokeswoman said: 'We are concerned that the government supports the proposal for a five-year time limit on complaints about fitness-to-practice. We recognise that it is subject to a public interest exception, but we do not think any such time limit is appropriate or necessary,' she said.

Roz Hooper, the RCN's principal legal officer, said: 'The NMC should be encouraged to deal with cases in a timely way as proposed by the Law Commission following consultation. This is better for patients and nurses, as it ensures fair and accurate findings. This would bring the NMC in line with other regulators such as the GMC, and importantly includes a safeguard that the time limit can be exceeded if it is in the public interest to do so.'

The legislative changes are centred on the reform of the current FtP system. The NMC wants to adopt a system similar to the GMC's, which would allow them to reduce the number of FtP actions they handle each year. The NMC currently spends 80 per cent of its budget on FtP, with every final hearing costing approximately £13,000. The NMC receives approximately 4000 referrals a year. Of these, 1756 progressed to final hearings in 2013-14.

The NMC's chief executive Jackie Smith said: 'The organisation has found itself continually constrained by a legal framework that tied it to inefficient practices.'

What do you think? Leave a comment below or tweet your views to @IndyNurseMag

This material is protected by MA Healthcare Ltd copyright.
See Terms and Conditions.

Comments

Name
 
Email
 
Comments
 

Please view our Terms and Conditions before leaving a comment.

Change the CAPTCHA codeSpeak the CAPTCHA code
 

Most read articles from Practice Nursing Journal

Practice Nursing Journal latest issue and most read articles.

Click here to read a selection of free to access articles from Practice Nursing Journal

Newsletter

Sign up to the newsletter

About

Independent Nurse is the professional resource for primary care and community nurses, providing clinical articles for practice nurses and prescribers.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up to date with the latest nursing news.

Stay Connected

Stay social with Independent Nurse by following us on Twitter, liking us on Facebook or connecting on LinkedIn.

Archive

Need access to some of our older articles? You can view our archive, or alternatively contact us.

Contact Us

MA Healthcare Ltd.
St Jude's Church, Dulwich Road
London, SE24 0PB

Tel: +44 (0)20 7738 5454
Registered in England and Wales No. 01878373

Meet the team

Authors

Find out how to contribute to Independent Nurse here.