Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Elaine Sullivan over dishonesty and conduct towards colleagues

The Nursing and Midwifery Council has struck mental health nurse Elaine Sullivan off the register after a panel found she dishonestly claimed to be a clinical lead in a court report and behaved inappropriately towards junior colleagues, conduct the panel described as tantamount to bullying.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 3 July 2026 · Updated 11 July 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 11 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 Elaine Maria Sullivan, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 99C1494E).

Decision date: 3 July 2026 · Hearing started 29 June 2026 and ended 3 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Elaine Maria Sullivan, a registered mental health nurse, dishonestly described herself as a clinical lead in a court report, worked outside her competence by diagnosing a patient, behaved inappropriately towards five junior colleagues, and disclosed private information about colleagues. The panel found her conduct was tantamount to bullying, that her fitness to practise was impaired, and made a striking-off order together with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

The NMC alleged that Mrs Sullivan, a registered nurse working as a Band 8a therapist in a Perinatal and Infant Mental Health Attachment Team (PIMHAT): (1-3) on a date unknown in 2019 incorrectly declared within a court report relating to Child A that she was the 'Clinical Lead' at PIMHAT, and that these declarations were dishonest and lacked integrity; (4) acted outside the scope of her competence and the remits of her role by diagnosing Patient B with dissociative identity disorder, informing the patient of that diagnosis, coding a Meaning of Child interview and directing that clinical enquiries be made to her instead of a doctor; (5-14) behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Colleagues A, H, C, K and J, including ignoring, excluding, berating and making offensive remarks to them, blocking training and withholding clinical supervision and developmental support, with the purpose or effect of violating their dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment; and (15) breached confidentiality by disclosing private or personal information about colleagues that was also inappropriate and/or derogatory.

Findings

Mrs Sullivan admitted all charges except charge 11.2 as amended, which the panel found proved on the evidence of Colleague K: that despite requests, Mrs Sullivan did not offer her clinical support, supervision or developmental support. All remaining charges were found proved by admission. The panel found the facts proved amounted to misconduct, breaching numerous provisions of the Code, and determined that Mrs Sullivan's conduct towards five junior colleagues was tantamount to bullying as defined in NMC guidance. It found all four limbs of the Grant test engaged, noting that a child was removed from their mother as a consequence of the court report in which she falsely claimed to be clinical lead, and that another patient was given the wrong diagnosis. The panel found her insight developing but limited, her misconduct not remediated and the risk of repetition high. It found her fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: early admission to the allegations; showing some remorse for her actions; and initial steps taken in respect of a matter recorded in the determination as private.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: dishonesty linked to her clinical role which had the effect of putting service users at risk of harm; abuse of a position of trust and power which caused emotional harm to colleagues; breach of confidentiality of colleagues' personal information which created a hostile work environment which further risked the provision of effective services to vulnerable users; repeated attitudinal and adverse behaviour as evidenced by a pattern of widespread misconduct over a period of ten months involving many colleagues in the workplace environment; and limited insight.

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.