Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — review hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Lorraine Hill, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 73D1349E).
Decision date: 16 February 2026 · Hearing started 16 February 2026
In plain English
The NMC Fitness to Practise Committee held a substantive order review meeting for Lorraine Hill in a misconduct case. The panel was reviewing Lorraine Hill's existing Suspension order (6 months). It recorded fitness to practise as impaired. The panel imposed a striking-off order. The published document gives the full reasons and underlying charge details.
Charges
The previous charges found proved were: ‘That you, a registered nurse: 1. On 8 and 9 February 2020 did not escalate Resident A’s concerns about their NIPPY machine by; a. Failing to read Resident A’s care plan [PROVED] b. Failing to check the Nippy machine tubing [PROVED] c. Failing to use the on-call system [PROVED] 2. On 9 February 2020 did not take observations and or escalate concerns following Resident A’s fall [PROVED] Page 4 of 12 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: ‘The panel found limbs a, b and c, as set out above, to be engaged in this case. It considered that as a result of Ms Hill’s misconduct, namely her failing to read the care plan, to check the NIPPY machine and tubing, to escalate concerns via the on-call system and to take observations following Resident A’s fall, Ms Hill caused Resident A significant harm and exposed other residents in her care to a risk of significant harm. The panel found these omissions breached the fundamental tenets of the nursing profession and brought its reputation into disrepute. Regarding insight, the panel determined that Ms Hill has shown limited insight. While the panel acknowledged that Ms Hill made some admissions during internal processes, it considered that she did not demonstrate any meaningful reflection or acceptance of responsibility for her actions. The panel also noted that Ms Hill has not engaged from the NMC proceedings and has provided no evidence of remorse, remediation or a recognition of the seriousness of her failings. The panel considered the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and was satisfied that the misconduct in this case is capable of being addressed. However, there was no evidence before the panel to show that Ms Hill has taken steps to strengthen her practice, such as training, reflection or seeking supervision. In the absence of such steps, the panel determined that there remains a risk of repetition of the misconduct. The panel therefore decided that a finding of impairment is necessary on the ground of public protection. The panel bore in mind that the overarching objectives of the NMC; to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety, and well-being of the public and patients, and to uphold and protect the wider public interest. This Page 5...
Findings
The NMC Fitness to Practise Committee held a substantive order review meeting for Lorraine Hill in a misconduct case. The panel reviewed an existing Suspension order (6 months). It recorded fitness to practise as impaired. The panel imposed a striking-off order.
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.