Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel issues two-year caution to nurse Julie Harland over care home failings

The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has imposed a two-year caution order on nurse Julie Harland, finding her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds alone after she admitted failings as deputy manager of a care home closed in 2018.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 July 2026 · Updated 23 July 2026

Warning (formally warned) — 2 years

Added to MedicWatch: 23 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 Julie Harland, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 06I0184S).

Decision date: 17 July 2026 · Hearing started 15 July 2026 and ended 17 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Julie Harland, a registered nurse, failed to ensure the safety and welfare of residents while she was deputy manager and clinical lead at a care home in 2018, including failures over staffing, cleanliness, personal and clinical care, and escalating concerns. She admitted all the charges. The panel decided her fitness to practise was impaired on public interest grounds only, finding no current risk to the public, and imposed a caution order for two years.

Charges

That, as a registered nurse and while employed as Deputy Manager and Clinical Lead at Acorn Park Care Home: (1) between 22 May 2018 and 17 September 2018 she failed to ensure the safety and/or wellbeing and/or welfare of residents within the Home, in that she failed to ensure the Home was adequately staffed; that staff were supported and/or supervised to provide safe and effective care; that the Home was clean and/or hygienic; that residents' personal, social and clinical care needs were met; that residents were moved and handled appropriately; that residents' documentation was complete and/or adequate; consistency and quality of care and/or support for those living with a diagnosis of dementia; safe and/or effective handovers; and that concerns were appropriately escalated. (2) Between 22 and 23 May 2018 she ignored Resident C when they were distressed and/or crying and/or calling out and/or disorientated; spoke rudely to the Care Inspector when they suggested providing Resident C with a resource to reduce Resident C's stressed behaviour; and failed to provide Resident C with that resource following the Care Inspector's suggestion. And, in light of the above, that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct.

Findings

All charges were found proved by way of Miss Harland's admissions. The panel found that her actions fell seriously short of the standards expected of a registered nurse and amounted to misconduct, having had sight of Care Inspectorate reports describing extremely poor conditions at the Home affecting particularly vulnerable residents, including some with advanced dementia and others receiving end-of-life care. The panel acknowledged that she had no managerial experience, training or support and had been placed in an invidious and difficult position by the Home's owners and managers, but held that she remained responsible for the residents in her care. It found the failings remediable and remedied, citing her full insight, extensive training and eight years of practice in a similar setting without repetition, and determined that a finding of impairment was not necessary on public protection grounds. The panel found her fitness to practise currently impaired on public interest grounds alone and imposed a caution order for two years.

Mitigating factors

Early admissions of the facts; evidence of having worked safely and professionally in the same or similar role since the events which caused concern; relevant training courses undertaken including managerial content; reflective accounts which provided in-depth insight, focussing on her own failing and not seeking to deflect blame or evade responsibility; evidence of keeping up to date with her area of relevant training; shown remorse and identified significant areas of her own development; effective performance as a nurse over the past eight years; relative inexperience at the time having received no support; and efforts undertaken to prevent a repeat of these events.

Aggravating factors

Conduct which deliberately or recklessly put people receiving care at risk of suffering harm and caused actual harm; a pattern of misconduct over a period of time; vulnerability of persons receiving care; and failure to lead or manage staff when the deputy manager and clinical lead of a twenty-eight bed home with highly vulnerable residents.

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.