Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel imposes conditions on nurse Diana Griffiths over record-keeping and escalation failings
The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has imposed a six-month conditions of practice order on nurse Diana Griffiths, after finding her fitness to practise impaired over failures to escalate abnormal blood-sugar results and keep adequate patient records.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 July 2026 · Updated 21 July 2026
Conditions on practice (practising with restrictions) — 6 months
Added to MedicWatch: 21 July 2026Report a correction
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Diana Linda Griffiths, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 99C1125E).
Decision date: 17 July 2026 · Hearing started 15 December 2025 and ended 17 July 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Diana Linda Griffiths, a registered adult nurse, failed to escalate two patients' abnormal blood-sugar results, did not follow her practice's protocol, failed to communicate cancelled appointments to patients, and kept inadequate records. Allegations of dishonesty were not proved. The committee decided her fitness to practise was impaired and imposed a six-month conditions of practice order, with an 18-month interim conditions order pending appeal.
Charges
The registrant, a practice nurse, faced charges that in March 2023 she: (1) cancelled and/or rebooked appointments for Patients A and B without clinical or administrative justification; (2) failed to communicate to Patients A and B that appointments had been cancelled or rescheduled; (3) failed to make adequate patient records of those communications; (4) acted dishonestly in charge 1 by seeking to reduce her own working hours and/or workload; (5) on or around 13 March 2023 failed to escalate and/or follow the Practice's HbA1c protocol for Patients C and D; and (6) failed to keep adequate records of consultations with Patients A and B. Charges 2, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b were found proved, some by admission. Charges 1a, 1b and 4, including the allegation of dishonesty, were found not proved.
Findings
The panel found that charges 5 and 6 amounted to misconduct: the registrant failed to escalate significantly elevated HbA1c results for two diabetic patients and did not follow the Practice's protocol, exposing them to a significant risk of harm, and she repeatedly failed to keep adequate consultation records over a six-month period. The communication and record-keeping failings in charges 2 and 3 were found to be poor practice rather than serious misconduct. The panel determined her fitness to practise was currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds, finding that although the concerns were remediable and she had shown developing insight, remediation was not yet complete and a risk of repetition remained.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The panel took into account the following mitigating features: you made early admissions to some of the charges; you have shown genuine remorse for your actions; you have completed training relevant to the concerns identified; and your reflective piece demonstrates a strengthening of practice.
Aggravating factors
The panel took into account the following aggravating features: a pattern of misconduct over a period of time; and conduct which recklessly put patients at risk of harm.
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.