Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Margaret Jane Cooper over care failings and dishonesty

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck nurse Margaret Jane Cooper off the register, finding she failed to ensure basic care and record keeping for vulnerable residents at a Norfolk care home in 2017 and was dishonest in what she told the Care Quality Commission.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 8 July 2026 · Updated 13 July 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 13 July 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 Margaret Jane Cooper, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 89A2800E).

Decision date: 8 July 2026 · Hearing started 21 July 2025 and ended 8 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Margaret Jane Cooper, a registered nurse and deputy manager at Lound Hall Care Home, failed to ensure adequate care planning, record keeping, nutrition referrals and pressure area care for vulnerable residents in 2017. The panel also found she was dishonest in representations she made to the Care Quality Commission. It found her fitness to practise impaired and imposed a striking-off order, with an 18-month interim suspension order covering the appeal period.

Charges

The NMC alleged that Mrs Cooper, a registered nurse in her role as Deputy Manager of Lound Hall Care Home, failed between 2016 and 2017 to ensure adequate care for a number of named residents. The charges covered failures to ensure that repositioning, wound care, pressure area, nutrition, hydration, continence and skin care plans, assessments and records were in place, complete or up to date; failures to ensure that dietetic referrals or GP reviews took place following significant weight loss; failure to ensure that pressure mattresses were set correctly and audited; and failure to ensure that call bells were answered promptly. Charge 17 alleged that, in an email to the Care Quality Commission on or about 27 October 2017, she made one or more representations which were not accurate. Charge 18a alleged that those representations were dishonest and/or lacked candour.

Findings

The panel concluded there was no case to answer in respect of charges 7a, 7b(i), 7b(ii), 9a, 9b and 11b. It found the facts proved on the majority of the remaining charges, including charges 17a-c (inaccurate representations to the CQC) and 18a (dishonesty), and found charges 2b(viii), 11a, 11c, 12, 13c, 13f, 13g, 13i, 13n(ii), 17d and 18b not proved. The panel determined that the proved failings amounted to misconduct, finding that they placed highly vulnerable residents at risk of serious harm and breached the fundamentals of nursing care. It considered that Mrs Cooper had demonstrated no meaningful insight, that there was no evidence of remediation, and that there was a real risk of repetition. It determined that her fitness to practise was impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. The panel imposed a striking-off order, together with an interim suspension order of 18 months to cover the appeal period.

Mitigating factors

The panel was unable to identify any mitigating factors. It concluded that Mrs Cooper's reflective material did not demonstrate genuine insight or remediation. There was no evidence of apology, strengthened practice, training, meaningful reflection or acceptance of responsibility.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: Mrs Cooper's conduct placed highly vulnerable residents at risk of suffering harm; there was a pattern of misconduct relating to a wide range of clinical failings over a sustained period of time; Mrs Cooper occupied a senior position of responsibility within the Home; the residents concerned were particularly vulnerable and dependent upon those responsible for their care; actual harm was caused to residents, together with a significant ongoing risk of further harm; Mrs Cooper failed to respond appropriately, despite repeated concerns and opportunities for improvement identified by external bodies, including the CQC and CCG; Mrs Cooper demonstrated little meaningful insight into her misconduct and failed to accept responsibility; Mrs Cooper's reflective material sought to deflect blame rather than demonstrate genuine remorse or reflection. The panel also attached significant weight to Mrs Cooper's dishonesty, which it considered to be a serious aggravating feature and indicative of a serious attitudinal concern.

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.