Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel strikes off nurse Richard Bartley for concealing disciplinary investigation from employer
The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has struck adult nurse Richard Bartley off the register after finding he repeatedly and dishonestly concealed an ongoing disciplinary investigation while securing a functional assessor post.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 22 June 2026 · Updated 9 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 9 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 Richard Bartley, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 09H2953E).
Decision date: 22 June 2026 · Hearing started 18 June 2026 and ended 22 June 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that adult nurse Richard Bartley acted dishonestly by repeatedly failing to disclose that he was under disciplinary investigation by a former employer when applying for and working in a functional assessor role, and by giving inaccurate referee details. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired and made a striking-off order on 22 June 2026, with an 18-month interim suspension pending any appeal.
Charges
That between 26 January 2022 and 25 August 2022, whilst applying for the role of / employed as Functional Assessor at the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA), Mr Bartley did not disclose that he was subject to a disciplinary investigation by his former employer, Salford Care Organisation, during a telephone screening interview, in his Baseline Personnel Security Standard Application Form, and during his employment; provided Person 1's details as his supervisor in the application form; that his actions were dishonest; and that they were motivated by an intention to conceal the disciplinary investigation from CHDA. Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were found proved; charge 4 (non-disclosure during a 2 February 2022 interview) was found not proved.
Findings
The panel found that Mr Bartley repeatedly and deliberately failed to disclose an ongoing disciplinary investigation when directly asked during recruitment, provided inaccurate referee information presenting a friend as his Matron and supervisor, and continued the non-disclosure during his employment. It found his actions dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people and motivated by an intention to conceal the investigation. The panel determined the facts proved amounted to serious professional misconduct and that his fitness to practise is currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. It made a striking-off order, and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order to cover the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Mr Bartley has no previous NMC fitness to practise findings against him; he had experienced a bereavement during an early stage of the NMC investigation, which the panel considered may have had some impact upon his engagement with the process.
Aggravating factors
A pattern of misconduct over a period of time; multiple opportunities to disclose the disciplinary investigation but chose not to; no evidence demonstrating insight; premeditated behaviour and a deliberate attempt to conceal relevant information from a prospective employer; deliberately incorrect information about his referee; misconduct connected to personal gain; attitudinal concerns relating to honesty and integrity; failure to communicate, attend hearings and engage in the fitness to practise process without good reason; an experienced Band 7 nurse who would have understood the professional standards expected; the Functional Assessor role required a particularly high degree of honesty, integrity and trust.
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.