Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel imposes three-year caution on nurse John Omoroje over false observation records
A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has imposed a three-year caution order on mental health nurse John Omoroje after finding he dishonestly recorded patient observations he had not carried out. The panel found no ongoing risk to the public after three years of safe practice.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 15 July 2026 · Updated 18 July 2026
Warning (formally warned) — 3 years
Added to MedicWatch: 18 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 John Omoroje, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 22B0651E).
Decision date: 15 July 2026 · Hearing started 29 June 2026 and ended 15 July 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that John Omoroje, a mental health nurse from Nottingham, dishonestly recorded observations of a vulnerable patient that he had not carried out, missed required observations of another patient, and left a box of diazepam unattended. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only and imposed a caution order for three years, noting over three years of safe practice since the events.
Charges
That, while working at a hospital, on 21 October 2022 he recorded that he had observed Patient A at five specified times when he had not; that those actions were dishonest in that he sought to create the impression that he had observed Patient A when he knew he had not; that he did not observe Patient B between 14.50 and 16.20 as required; that on 30 December 2022 he administered incorrect medication to Patient C; that on 31 December 2022 he left a box of diazepam unattended; and that, while working at a care home, he prepared the wrong dosage of risperidone for Patient D on 21 May 2024 and administered an incorrect dose of risperidone to Patient D on 3 and 4 June 2024.
Findings
The panel found charges 1(a)-(e), 2, 3, 5, 7(a) and 7(b) proved; charges 4 and 6 were not proved. Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos, it found that recording observations of Patient A which had not been undertaken was dishonest. The conduct in charges 1, 2, 3 and 5 amounted to misconduct; the medication error at charge 7 did not. The panel found no current risk to the public, noting approximately three and a half years of safe unrestricted practice, but determined that fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds. It imposed a caution order for three years, rejecting the NMC's submission for a suspension order. No interim order was made.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Early admission of some facts; apologies and remorse; some relevant training courses undertaken; working competently and with integrity; significant evidence of working safely and effectively without restriction; level of experience at the time; level of support (in what the panel concluded to be a hostile environment).
Aggravating factors
Deliberate breaches of the Code; dishonesty in relation to falsifying records; developing insight; vulnerability of the person receiving care in this case; risk of harm to Patient A and Patient B; lack of candour; risk to the reputation of the profession; risk of members of the public not seeking assistance in light of the dishonesty.
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.