Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC strikes off health visitor Gillian Graham over dishonesty and safeguarding failures

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck health visitor Gillian Graham off the register after finding she dishonestly claimed inaccurate travel mileage and repeatedly failed to file safeguarding records for vulnerable children on her NHS Fife caseload.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 30 July 2026 · Updated 18 August 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 17 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 Gillian Graham, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 87Y0052S).

Decision date: 30 July 2026 · Hearing started 21 July 2026 and ended 30 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that health visitor Gillian Graham submitted inaccurate mileage claims dishonestly between January 2017 and March 2018, and told a colleague a nursery visit had gone well when she had not attended. The panel also found she repeatedly failed to file safeguarding documents and record wellbeing assessments for families with vulnerable children on her caseload. It found her fitness to practise impaired, struck her off the register and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

That she, a registered nurse: on one or more occasions from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2018 declared inaccurate mileage when submitting travel expenses (charge 1), and that this was dishonest because she was aware she could be overpaid and knew those assessing her expenses could be misled (charge 2); that when Colleague A enquired about her visit to a nursery she incorrectly declared 'everything was fine, it went well' or words to that effect (charge 3), and that this was dishonest because she was attempting to mislead Colleague A into believing she had attended when she knew she had not (charge 4). Charges 5 to 10 alleged that, in relation to families 4, 5, 6, 13, 22 and 48, she failed to store or file safeguarding documentation in an accessible manner and, knowing the children were vulnerable or living in vulnerable circumstances, failed to document wellbeing assessments using SHANARRI indicators, maintain contact and chronologies, undertake agreed visits, action interagency referral discussions, or complete developmental checks. And in light of the above, that her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct.

Findings

The panel proceeded in Ms Graham's absence. It found charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.1, 8, 9 and 10 proved, and charge 7.2 not proved because the evidence did not establish that she was the named Health Visitor responsible for family 6 at the relevant time. The panel found the facts proved amounted to serious misconduct, breaching sections 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 20 of the Code. It found all four limbs of Grant engaged, holding that she had placed vulnerable children at unwarranted risk of harm through repeated safeguarding and record-keeping failures and had brought the profession into disrepute through dishonesty over mileage claims. It found her insight limited, noting her explanations focused largely on external factors, and found no evidence of remediation or strengthened practice, leaving a significant risk of repetition. It found her fitness to practise impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. On sanction, the panel concluded that no action, a caution order, conditions of practice and suspension were each insufficient, and directed the registrar to strike her off the register. It imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover the 28-day appeal period.

Mitigating factors

Ms Graham's admissions regarding the inaccurate expenses claims during her employer's investigation; and a further mitigating feature which the panel heard in private.

Aggravating factors

Abuse of a position of trust, as an experienced and senior nurse; conduct which deliberately or recklessly put vulnerable children and their families at risk of suffering harm through repeated safeguarding failures; a pattern of misconduct over a sustained period of time; prolonged and deliberate dishonesty for personal financial gain; premeditated behaviour in that Ms Graham returned to submitting inaccurate mileage claims after a period of enhanced monitoring, during which she was capable of making accurate claims; failure to engage meaningfully with the Fitness to Practise process; and absence of insight, remediation or strengthened practice.

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.