Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — review hearing
Other (other outcome)
Added to MedicWatch: 5 May 2026Report a correction
What does “other outcome” mean?
An outcome that does not fit standard categories. See the source determination for full details.
Concerning Shona Margaret Hancock, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 80D0117S).
Decision date: 19 February 2026 · Hearing started 19 February 2026
In plain English
The NMC Fitness to Practise Committee held a substantive order review hearing for Shona Margaret Hancock in a misconduct case. The panel was reviewing Shona Margaret Hancock's existing Suspension order (6 months). It recorded fitness to practise as impaired. The panel allowed the existing order to lapse at expiry. The published document gives the full reasons and underlying charge details.
Charges
The previous charges found proved were: ‘That you, a registered nurse and registered manager of Muirhead Care Home from September 2015 to August 2018: 1. Failed to ensure and/or document that all staff at the Home: a) […] b) had completed an induction at the Home c) had completed training regarding fire safety and/or dementia and/or aggression and/or stress and distress and/or moving and handling where relevant to role d) […] e) had been subject to competency assessments where relevant to role f) […] g) had been restraining residents appropriately, with clinical justification h) had been completing detailed risk assessments in respect of residents being restrained by belts i) had been subjected to adequate investigation and action when concerns had been raised Page 3 of 16 j) […] k) […] 2. Failed to ensure that: a) one or more of 13 safeguarding incidents had been properly reported b) accident and incident records had been completed in sufficient detail AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.’ The original panel determined the following with regard to impairment: In coming to its decision, the panel had regard to the Fitness to Practise Library, updated on 27 March 2023, which states: ‘The question that will help decide whether a professional’s fitness to practise is impaired is: “Can the nurse, midwife or nursing associate practise kindly, safely and professionally?” If the answer to this question is yes, then the likelihood is that the professional’s fitness to practise is not impaired.’ Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to be professional. Patients and their families must be able to trust nurses with their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients’ and the public’s trust in the profession. In this regard, the panel considered the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant in reaching its decision. In paragraph 74, she said: ‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public Page 4 of 16 in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional...
Findings
The NMC Fitness to Practise Committee held a substantive order review hearing for Shona Margaret Hancock in a misconduct case. The panel reviewed an existing Suspension order (6 months). It recorded fitness to practise as impaired. The panel allowed the existing order to lapse at expiry.
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.