Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel suspends nurse Lisa Edwards for 12 months over remarks to resident and family

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has suspended nurse Lisa Edwards for 12 months after finding she told a bedbound care home resident she stank, swore at a colleague and spoke dismissively to another resident's family about funding for his care.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 12 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.

Concerning Lisa Edwards, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 10H3527E).

Decision date: 12 August 2026 · Hearing started 3 August 2026 and ended 12 August 2026

In plain English

The NMC found that Lisa Edwards, a registered nurse, made demeaning remarks to a bedbound care home resident about her smell, swore at a healthcare assistant colleague, and spoke dismissively to a second resident's relatives about funding for his care, including saying patients would eventually rot in their beds. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct and imposed a suspension order for 12 months, with a review. An interim suspension order of 18 months was also made.

Charges

The NMC alleged that, while working at Priesty Fields Care Home, the registrant said to Resident A 'you stink', 'you smell of piss', 'your feet look dirty and cheesy' and 'your wound looked disgusting', or words to that effect, and on one or more occasions said to Senior Health Care Assistant Colleague A 'you are not a fucking nurse', or words to that effect. It further alleged that, while working at Clement Court Care Home, she said to Person A, a relative of Resident B, on 14 August 2023 'where do you think funding for that comes from?', 'do you think there is a pot of gold?' and 'all the patients in this place will eventually rot in their beds', or words to that effect, and that on 15 August she raised her voice to relatives of Resident B when they raised concerns. In light of the above, the NMC alleged her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. She denied all the charges.

Findings

The panel found charges 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii), 1(b), 2(a)(i), 2(a)(iii) and 2(b) proved on the balance of probabilities. Charges 1(a)(iii), 1(a)(iv) and 2(a)(ii) were found not proved; the panel concluded the NMC had not discharged its burden of proof where the disputed wording was absent from the contemporaneous documentation. The panel found the proved facts amounted to misconduct, breaching Code standards 1.1, 1.5, 2.6, 8.1, 8.2, 8.5, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.5, 20.6 and 20.8. It determined that limbs a), b) and c) of the Grant test were engaged, that Resident A and Mr Jagger had been caused emotional harm, and that the misconduct breached fundamental tenets of the nursing profession. The panel found her insight developing but her remediation limited, and a risk of repetition remaining, and found her fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. It imposed a suspension order for 12 months with a review, having concluded that a caution order or conditions of practice would not address the attitudinal concerns and that a striking-off order would be disproportionate. An interim suspension order of 18 months was imposed to cover the appeal period.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: there are no concerns about her clinical skills, and it heard that her clinical standards are high; there has been no similar conduct since the referral of other matters to the NMC in 2024, which resulted in a Warning issued in 2025; the panel accepted that there was evidence that the care homes were understaffed and noted her evidence that she lacked support in the workplace; and during the course of the hearing she demonstrated some remorse for her conduct.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: underlying attitudinal issues; a failure to work collaboratively with Mr Jagger; misconduct that caused actual emotional harm to Resident A and Mr Jagger; Resident A was vulnerable; a pattern of misconduct over a protracted period of time; and other regulatory concerns of a similar nature which arose after these events.

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.