Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC orders Merja Hannele Hiidenkari struck off after misconduct and health case
The NMC ordered striking off after findings including an attempted excessive dose and discriminatory correspondence. The patient refused the medication, and the panel acknowledged the email was an isolated incident.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 10 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Merja Hannele Hiidenkari, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 97L0021C).
Decision date: 10 September 2026 · Hearing started 9 September 2026 and ended 10 September 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee ordered Merja Hannele Hiidenkari to be struck off after findings concerning an attempted medication overdose, discriminatory correspondence and private health matters. The patient refused the tablets, so the excessive dose was not administered. The panel acknowledged that the discriminatory email was an isolated incident but found insufficient engagement, insight or remediation. An interim suspension covers the appeal period before the final order takes effect.
Charges
The NMC panel proved a private health-related charge, an attempt to administer 90mg of dihydrocodeine when 30mg was prescribed, and a discriminatory comment about Nigerian nurses in correspondence with the NMC. The patient refused the tablets, so the excessive dose was not administered. The health particulars remain private; the misconduct finding concerned the discriminatory correspondence.
Findings
The NMC panel found impairment on public protection and public interest grounds. It recognised that the email was an isolated incident, with no evidence of patient discrimination or a wider pattern, and did not consider it necessary to decide whether the views were deep-seated. It found no recent engagement or evidence of insight, reflection or remediation sufficient to address the concerns. It imposed a striking-off order and an 18-month interim suspension for the appeal period. If no appeal is made, the final order replaces the interim order 28 days after written notification. Private health information is not disclosed here.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
• [PRIVATE] • No evidence of previous or repeated discriminatory comments • With specific regard to charge 3, the impact of the alleged bullying she had experienced and the alleged discrimination contained within her email to the NMC.
Aggravating factors
• Lack of insight and reflection into misconduct • Failure to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason • No apologies and no acknowledgement of the risk of harm • Failure to collaborate with colleagues to identify and address issues arising from the medication error and no recording of Patient A’s refusal to accept the medication, as would have been expected of Miss Hiidenkari’s in the circumstance • Real risk of harm to Patient A
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.