Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Clara Osazuwa over medication error and dishonesty

The Nursing and Midwifery Council has struck nurse Clara Osazuwa off the register after its Fitness to Practise Committee found she administered an excessive dose of Enoxaparin to a patient, repeatedly refused to undertake patient care, and dishonestly claimed a colleague had authorised her absence.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 1 July 2026 · Updated 11 July 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 11 July 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Clara Osariemen Osazuwa, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 19H2407E).

Decision date: 1 July 2026 · Hearing started 1 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Clara Osariemen Osazuwa, a registered nurse, did not engage with training and supervised medication rounds, refused to follow instructions and to undertake patient care, administered an excessive dose of Enoxaparin, took unauthorised absences, failed to prepare patient notes and did not answer patient call bells. The panel also found she acted dishonestly about an unauthorised absence. It found her fitness to practise impaired and made a striking-off order, together with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

The NMC alleged that Ms Osazuwa, a registered nurse: did not engage with a training session or a supervised medication round and did not understand the importance of time critical medication (11-12 September 2023); refused to follow a band 6 nurse's instructions and refused to undertake patient care (26 September 2023); arrived half an hour late for a shift and said "I am not doing any work today" (18 January 2023); spoke to a colleague in an intimidating and/or confrontational manner (13 February 2023); administered an excessive dose of Enoxaparin to a patient (14 February 2023); attempted to dispose of the syringe used and demonstrated a lack of candour when questioned; acted dishonestly in seeking to conceal the excessive dose; took unauthorised absence from work on five dates; stated to another member of staff that a colleague had told her to go home, and did so dishonestly knowing the absence had not been authorised; failed to prepare patient notes on four dates; failed to answer patient call bells; and failed to engage with her employer's Supporting Attendance policy.

Findings

The panel found charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 proved. Charges 6b (lack of candour when questioned) and 7 (dishonestly seeking to conceal the excessive dose) were found not proved; the panel noted it was normal practice to dispose of a syringe after use and that there was no evidence she disposed of it dishonestly. The panel found that the facts proved, with the exception of charge 6a, amounted to misconduct and breached multiple provisions of the Code. It found all four limbs of the Grant test engaged, identifying a substantial risk of patient harm in the past, deep-seated attitudinal issues, a complete lack of insight and a high risk of repetition given Ms Osazuwa's non-engagement with her employer and the NMC. The panel found her fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: reference to health issues, however there was no evidence before the panel to substantiate these or how they would have affected the conduct in the charges.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: repeated failings over a long period of time; wide range of failings; failure to take on any of the support offered; non engagement from the conduct meeting onwards, with her employer; non engagement with the NMC; any matters of dishonesty; complete absence of insight.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.