Nurse cleared of exceeding authority

Alan Cawkwell, a nurse at in A&E at Rotherham Hospital and the town’s Walk-in Health Centre, faced three misconduct charges when he appeared before the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

The nurse, who claimed his job was never made clear to him, admitted administering prescribing drugs to patients when not qualified to do so, but denied discharging patients without authority and treating patients outside his remit.

He also denied his fitness to practise had been impaired.

The panel found the two disputed charges not proved and ruled that his fitness to practise was not impaired, although they said he was guilty of misconduct on the charge relation to medication.

The hearing had been told that it was made clear to Cawkwell that he was not to treat patients with serious injuries at the hospital — and that they could only be discharged by a consultant.

Cawkwell claimed this was never made clear to him in the induction or in any following meeting.

Giving evidence at a London hearing last week, Cawkwell said: “At no point was it made clear to me what my scope was supposed to be within this job.”

Mr Derrick Duffy, representing Cawkwell, told the panel: “The suggestion has been made that Mr Cawkwell was working outside his remit and that if doctors and consultants had been upset by this they would have immediately made the relevant people aware of that fact.

“The fact they did not do this demonstrates the fact they believed he was working within his remit.

“Mr Cawkwell’s supposed scope was never explained to him so there is no way it can be expected that he was meant to work within it.”

Ms Rachel Ellis, representing the NMC, said evidence from fellow nurse Ann Banbridge painted a different picture.

“In numerous logs made by Miss Bainbridge it is made clear that she became aware Mr Cawkwell was acting above his station,” she said.

The panel’s conclusions, finding Cawkwell was not unfit to practise, said: “The panel does not find that Mr Cawkwell’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

“While Mr Cawkwell has made errors in his practice which the panel have found amount to misconduct which is serious, it does not necessarily follow that a fundamental principle of the profession has been breached.

“In the panel's view, in all the circumstances, his misconduct does not amount to a breach of the fundamental tenets of the profession.”