The Referral – NMC response with my annotations in blue
1. Mr. X first contacted the NMC to make a referral about registered nurse Bethan Parry’s fitness to practise in 2018. Nurse Parry works for the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) and carries out assessments on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). Mr. X’s referral concerned a report Nurse Parry produced for a work capability assessment. Mr. X alleged that Nurse Parry lied in her report. He said the report didn’t accurately record several important key elements in relation to his condition and ignored others. Mr. X raised his concerns with the DWP. The DWP wrote to Mr X on 8 November 2018 and revised the decision about his entitlement to employment support allowance.
they wrote to Mr. X to say they’d decided not to investigate further. That
decision explained that, despite a number of attempts to contact Mr. X they’d been unable to obtain further information from him and didn’t have his agreement to share the information he’d provided.
Furthermore, this is incorrect as I did provide consent. I provided consent several times. It can not be refuted by NMC that I provided consent because NMC replied to one of my consent emails. However, NMC states I did not provide consent.
Incidentally, NMC have failed to answer my complaints surrounding the above.
3. On 30 October 2020, Mr. X provided agreement to share his information.
Raising a complaint in regards to this was not answered despite multiple requests for clarification as to why I was ignored.
4. Having received Mr. X’s agreement to share as well as further information from him, the Screening team considered the concerns again.
‘As the concerns raised by Mr X don’t engage any of our three categories of seriousness they don’t pass this stage of our screening process. We understand and acknowledge Mr X’s concerns and the impact that they’ve had on him.
We would also like to make it clear to Mr X that our decision does not mean that this matter itself is not serious, however Mrs Parry’s actions in isolation, which appears to have been errors, don’t suggest that they’re serious enough to require our involvement as a regulator.
Based on the information we’ve received we don’t consider that this matter
suggests that Mrs Parry is a danger to those in her care, or that her practise
should be restricted in some way in order to maintain confidence in the
professions. We therefore won’t be investigating any further at this time.’
Despite the seriousness of the above and the fact it was explained to nurse Bethan Parry who decided to not give it any regard, it is obvious to any reasonable person that: Someone suffering with mental health problems who clearly has evidence to this effect is all disregarded by the nurse who did not record this information. Furthermore, other pertinent information was not provided in the report.
The report contained several inaccuracies – or lies. This clearly shows that nurse Bethan Parry was dishonest in her actions.
8. On receiving the decision, Mr X contacted the NMC. He said he didn’t agree with the statement that the concern was an isolated incident. He said Nurse Parry made several mistakes within the report and the decision referred to a prior complaint.
The evidence existing to show the nurse was dishonest is outlined above, whereby I explained to Bethan Parry the circumstances surrounding my previous assessment and it causing me to have a mental breakdown in job centre.
• no further action is needed at this time
• the case should be sent to the Screening team for further enquiries and a fresh decision to be made based on all of the information, including any new information obtained.
• a case where the concern is about someone’s fitness to practise should be referred to the Case Examiners
Guidance we followed when reviewing this case
12.I’ve applied the guidance in our Fitness to Practise library when carrying out this review. Our guidance is available on our website at www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library
13.In particular, I’ve taken account of:
• Aims and principles for fitness to practise (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-
• How we determine seriousness (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
• Screening – Our overall approach (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
• The Three stages of a Screening decision (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-
Do you really rely on your audacity to imply that my concern of a nurse deliberately lying is not serious? My opinion is that the NMC essentially has BLOOD ON ITS HANDS in relation to discriminating against vulnerable people.
May I remind you about the “DWP Death Figures”, whereby people have actually killed themselves because your nursing colleagues have again lied in their report.
The actions of these nurses and the assessment is widely reported via some media outlets. In addition to the number of people who have either died as a result of the nurses actions, or have committed suicide because of the nurses actions.
• If we don’t refer as case (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
• Explaining how and why a nurse or midwife presents a regulatory concern
• Misconduct (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
• Lack of competence (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
• Insight and strengthened practice (www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/
14.I’ve considered whether something went wrong with how the Screening team
made their decision. I’ve also considered whether there’s any new information
that could change the decision.
The letter sent to Mr X on 21 May 2021 with the reasons for the original decision attached, referred to the previous four-stage process. This had the potential to cause confusion, but I don’t consider it means something went wrong with the decision itself, which referred to the correct process.
Within the table of findings, NMC attempted to again provide fiction over fact by stating that the nurse recorded my medication. The fact is that the nurse did not state this, she stated I do not take any medication whatsoever.
different, albeit linked areas of practice:
• clear and accurate record keeping,
• honesty and integrity.
Clearly, the medical record was not accurate. There exists a number of inaccuracies.
Clearly, the nurse was not honest in her approach – not only due to the number of inaccuracies, but also failed entirely to give any regard to my condition (as explained above)
assessment and Nurse Parry’s report. However, it said ‘it appears that this matter is an instance of poor record keeping rather a deliberate intention to mislead.’
In this instance, the entirety of the report contained inaccuracies, the nurse cherry picked information and twisted information in her report in addition to ignoring any pertinent elements.
It is for this reason that DWP overturned the decision after they gave regard to what I had said rather than what the nurse said.
In light of the above, the fact that the whole report was inaccurate, cherry picked information, twisting of facts and downright lies showed a clear intention to mislead.
For the NMC to be aware of the above and claim that the nurse did not have any intention to mislead and was not dishonest is at best a pathetic response.
dishonest or that the report was written with the intention to mislead. The
information that we’ve received does not suggest a serious underlying issue with Mrs Parry’s professionalism or attitude towards patient safety which could be more difficult to put right.’
The lies stated by the nurse is a concern for patient safety. Outlined above are DWP death figures, or you may search “Daniel Blake”
Clearly, the pattern of these lies, or, inaccurate record keeping exists in my assessment. Furthermore, a similar complaint was raised against the same nurse by an entirely different person. Again, this shows a pattern.
Our context commitments say building up an accurate picture of someone’s practising history can help with this. For example, it can be useful to know whether the nurse, midwife or nursing associate had encountered a similar
situation or carried out a similar task before, knew what to do and would usually do it safely and effectively.
Incidentally, the pattern can not only be seen from my own assessment, but can also be seen from someone else who complained about the same nurse in respect of how she made an inaccurate report.
2 people complaining about the same nurse, each person having a multiple of evidence / complaints, yet, NMC decides it is not a pattern and is quite happy for this derisory nurse to remain in her role of assessing vulnerable people.
someone’s honesty and integrity. The reason for this is that these types of
concerns could show there’s a problem with the nurse, midwife or nursing
associate’s attitude. Attitudinal concerns are more difficult to put right and are
capable of affecting the public’s trust in all nurses, midwives and nursing
associates. In these kinds of cases, it may not be possible for the nurse, midwife
or nursing associate to address the concern and may mean we need to take
restrictive regulatory action.
Details as to why the nurse was not honest and not showing integrity can be seen from my fitness to practise referral alone. Clearly, the nuses actions in this element of a multitude of inaccurate data, skewing facts, cherry picking information and failing to record other pertinent elements shows it is far from an isolated incident, it shows it is a pattern, ultimately it shows that the nurse acted dishonestly and with no integrity.
This is also the interpretation of the DWP.
This is also the interpretation of my own medical health team.
This is also the interpretation provided by my solicitors who are taking action against CHDA and the solicitors medical panel.
associate of being dishonest. On its own, I don’t consider the differences
between the transcript and Nurse Parry’s report justifies accusing Nurse Parry of such a serious allegation. Having carried out a review, I’ve not identified any
other evidence or sources of evidence that could support a concern about Nurse
Parry’s honesty and integrity.
27.In his correspondence, Mr X has referred to reports from whistle-blowers saying that CHDA staff are pressured to lie, alter or fabricate reports. However, I’ve not identified any evidence or any sources of evidence that could show Nurse Parry was under pressure to do this or had any other reason to lie in the report she produced. Therefore, the original decision was right to view the concern as one about a discrete area of clinical practice. This means it was relevant to take account of whether there’s evidence of a pattern of similar concerns. In the context of Nurse Parry’s role, this would mean whether there’s
evidence that Nurse Parry hadn’t made accurate records on other occasions and that any inaccuracies were significant enough to mean there’s a risk of harm.
• Nurse Parry’s response to the concern,
• the action CHDA had taken as Nurse Parry’s employer,
• the evidence of Nurse Parry’s practising history,
similar concerns. Even though Mr X raised multiple issues, they all relate to a single report. CHDA provided information about another complaint in 2018, but there’s no record of any similar complaints since. Nurse Parry continues to work in the same role, provided a reflection and a positive clinical reference from her line manager. The clinical reference refers to weekly quality assurance of Nurse
Parry’s work, comments positively on her professionalism and ability to learn from feedback.
In regards to the nurses ability to learn from feedback, clearly this is not the case as no lessons have been learnt as the same nurse has received two complaints of similar nature.
30.The evidence available doesn’t show Nurse Parry’s practice presents a risk to patients or members of the public in the future.
The evidence exists to show the nurse lied on a multitude of occasions. Not only this, but the nurse ignored a risk to myself. I clearly explained to the nurse my problems of prior assessment, I explained I had mental breakdown in job centre and could not claim any form of help via benefits.
The nurse chose not to record this information, she was aware that her actions of lying would invariably put me in the same position previously which I had informed her about.
This is a clear risk to the public as she totally disregarded my evidence in this instance.
He also said the NMC treats concerns from vulnerable people differently, ignoring those involving the DWP. When we develop our guidance and policies and when we make decisions we do so in accordance with equality law and we are required to consider how our decisions, guidance and policies might affect people with protected characteristics. I’ve considered Mr X’s comments but
have concluded that the decision applied our guidance correctly.
32.In his communication, both before and after the original decision was made, Mr X raised a specific issue about Nurse Parry’s record of the medication he was taking and how the NMC have dealt with this. I’ve reviewed Mr X’s emails, including those dated 11 February 2021, 22 April 2021 and 8 October 2021 that touch on this issue. I’ve also reviewed the transcript of the assessment and the ESA85 medical report form.
33.These documents show that Mr X told Nurse Parry he wasn’t taking any medication (other than sleeping tablets) at the time of the assessment. However, he did say that he was due to start taking new medication. Nurse Parry recorded this on page 3 of the report. However, this information wasn’t included in the assessment summary on page 18 and Mr X said it didn’t form part of the DWP’s decision-making process.
in the assessment summary section. Even if there was, this doesn’t indicate the
screening team failed to consider the full seriousness of the concern. As a
concern about clinical practice and in the absence of a pattern of similar
concerns, there’s no evidence of a serious concern that could require us to take
regulatory action to protect the public.
NMC claim there is no evidence to show that the nurse should have wrote about my medication, however, evidence is not needed in this regard. The fact is, the nurse deliberately lied in regards to my medication. This, along with her other lies shows her lack of honesty and integrity.
35.For the reasons above, I don’t consider anything went wrong with how the original decision was made. I’ve not identified any new information that could change the decision.
Nurse ignores key elements of my condition and does not report
All of the inaccurate data, the lies, omitting information, skewing information was all done in an effort to disallow my ESA claim. The actions of the nurse show that she is both dishonest and lacks integrity. Pretty much the same actions shown by NMC, lack of honesty and integrity.
Orwell would be proud of your doublespeak 🙂