Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel imposes 12-month caution on nurse John Peprah over dishonest records

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has imposed a 12-month caution order on East Sussex mental health nurse John Pius Akwasi Peprah, who admitted missing patient observations on a night shift and dishonestly recording checks he had not carried out.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 23 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026

Warning (formally warned) — 1 year

Added to MedicWatch: 8 July 2026Report a correction

What does “formally warned” mean?

A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.

Concerning John Pius Akwasi Peprah, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 21I0859O).

Decision date: 23 June 2026 · Hearing started 17 June 2026 and ended 23 June 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that John Pius Akwasi Peprah, a mental health nurse working in East Sussex, missed required patient observations during a night shift in April 2024 and dishonestly recorded observations he had not carried out. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds alone and imposed a 12-month caution order, noting his early admissions, insight and two years of safe practice since.

Charges

That, in the course of or in relation to a shift worked on 25-26 April 2024, he: (1) failed to make 3 of 4 required observation entries during 1:1 observation of Patient F; (2) failed to carry out observations of Patient B within 30 minutes, and of Patient D within 1 hour, of the previous observation; (3) failed to carry out one or more head count observations between approximately 04:00 and 05:00; (4) recorded that he had carried out one or more observations when he had not; and (5) acted dishonestly, in that he knew he was representing that he had carried out a patient observation which he had not. All charges were proved by admission.

Findings

All charges were proved by admission. The panel found that charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 amounted to serious professional misconduct; charge 2 did not cross that threshold. The panel determined that fitness to practise was impaired on public interest grounds alone, finding no ongoing risk to patient safety, a very low risk of repetition, and no deep-seated attitudinal issue, and accepting that the incidents arose within a challenging and insufficiently supported working environment during a single shift. It concluded that the dishonest record keeping and failures in patient observation required a formal regulatory response, and imposed a caution order for a period of one year.

Mitigating factors

Early admissions of the facts from the earliest stage, including at a local level; unequivocal acceptance of personal responsibility and acknowledgment that the conduct was dishonest and serious; genuine remorse and developed insight; comprehensive reflective work; extensive efforts to prevent recurrence and strengthen practice; evidence of safe and professional work in a similar role since the events; relevant training and ongoing learning; positive testimonials from the current employer and line manager; and the isolated nature of the misconduct, occurring during one shift over a relatively short period.

Aggravating factors

Conduct which put people receiving care at risk of suffering harm; and the vulnerability of the people receiving care.

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.