Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Lorna Fell over medication errors and dishonesty

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck nurse Lorna Fell from the register after finding she gave a patient twice the prescribed dose of Oramorph, concealed the error and asked a doctor to alter the prescription to match. It found her dishonest on three counts.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 31 August 2026Report a correction

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 Lorna Fell, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 13A1654E).

Decision date: 21 August 2026 · Hearing started 17 August 2026 and ended 21 August 2026

In plain English

The NMC found that registered nurse Lorna Fell gave a patient double the prescribed dose of Oramorph, did not record the error or tell the patient, asked a colleague not to report it and asked a doctor to change the prescription to match. The panel also found she made incorrect controlled drug records on two later shifts. It found her conduct dishonest on three counts, found her fitness to practise impaired, and imposed a striking-off order with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

The charges arose while Ms Fell was employed as a registered nurse at Nuffield Health Hospital. The panel found proved that on 19 October 2023 she failed to review Patient A’s prescription before administering Oramorph, administered 20mg instead of the prescribed 10mg, failed to record that a medication error had occurred, did not inform Patient A of it, asked Colleague A not to report it, and asked the resident doctor to change Patient A’s prescription from 10mg to 20mg; and that this conduct was dishonest in that she intended to mislead others into believing no medication error had occurred. It also found proved that on 12 March 2024 she left prescribed Gabapentin next to Patient B, did not observe them consume it, incorrectly recorded that they had done so at 10pm, failed to undertake regular observations as directed, failed to review Patient C’s records before administering oral paracetamol and administered it incorrectly; and that on 13 March 2024 she removed Gabapentin from the controlled drug cupboard without a second checker and incorrectly recorded that Patient B missed their morning dose. The records at charges 3d and 4b were found to be dishonest. Charge 3a was not proved.

Findings

The panel found that Ms Fell’s conduct amounted to misconduct and that her fitness to practise is currently impaired. At the sanction stage it found that, given the high level of serious dishonesty which posed a risk of harm to vulnerable patients, only a striking-off order would be appropriate. It considered that her actions were significant departures from the standards expected of a registered nurse and fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the register. The panel rejected taking no action and a caution order, finding that her actions were not at the lower end of the spectrum and that there is a risk to patient and public safety. It concluded that allowing her to continue practising would not protect the public and would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as a regulatory body. The panel imposed a striking-off order, together with an interim suspension order of 18 months to cover the 28-day appeal period. Ms Fell was not present and unrepresented at the hearing.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: partial informal admission of the facts in the Agreed Removal Application; limited insight on clinical errors; and some information of difficult personal circumstances.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: repeated dishonest acts; dishonesty in a clinical role; no insight on dishonesty; failure to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason; no indication of having strengthened practice or any willingness to do so; vulnerability of the person receiving care; likelihood of actual harm caused to a patient; coercion of a junior member of staff; deceiving a doctor to improperly prescribe controlled drugs to a vulnerable patient; and repeating misconduct for which a final written warning had previously been issued by her employer.

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.