Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC suspended Lawrence Essilfie over clinical failings, dishonesty and colleague behaviour
The panel imposed 12 months' suspension with review after finding clinical and behavioural misconduct and dishonesty about experience. Alleged sexual motivation was not proved; some other charges were dismissed or did not amount to misconduct.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 18 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.
Concerning Lawrence Stephen Essilfie, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 13A1068E).
Decision date: 18 September 2026 · Hearing started 22 September 2025 and ended 18 September 2026
In plain English
The NMC found that Lawrence Stephen Essilfie's clinical failings, dishonest overstatement of nursing experience and inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues amounted to misconduct. Alleged sexual motivation was not proved, and some other allegations were dismissed or did not amount to misconduct. The panel recognised training and positive professional evidence but found insufficient insight and remediation. In September 2026 it imposed 12 months' suspension with review, plus an interim suspension covering the appeal period.
Charges
The allegations concerned clinical care, blood sampling and transfusion, representations about experience and qualifications, and inappropriate conduct towards colleagues between 2020 and 2023. Charge 3 was deleted as a duplicate. There was no case to answer on the alleged vancomycin infusion rate or alleged dishonesty in signing a colleague's blood-transfusion competency. The remaining allegations included dishonesty about nursing experience and alleged sexual motivation for physical contact with colleagues.
Findings
The panel found misconduct and impairment arising from repeated clinical failings, dishonest overstatement of years of qualified nursing experience, and inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues. It found sexual motivation not proved and rejected two allegations about a November 2020 interaction. It did not find dishonesty in the chemotherapy-qualification statement, and neither that statement nor the blood-transfusion competency sign-off amounted to misconduct. It recognised training, engagement and positive professional evidence, but found insufficient insight and remediation and a risk of repetition. It imposed 12 months' suspension with review and an 18-month interim suspension covering the appeal period, replaced by the substantive order if no appeal is made.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
• The training and learning you had undertaken, albeit that much of this consisted of e-learning which had not been supported by objective practical assessment.
Aggravating factors
• A pattern of clinical misconduct occurring over a period of time. • Repeated inappropriate behaviour towards a number of colleagues and across more than one professional setting. • The impact of your conduct upon colleagues and your failure to work collaboratively and maintain appropriate professional boundaries. • Limited insight into the impact of your behaviour upon colleagues and your own responsibility for that behaviour. • Limited insight into the dishonesty found proved. • Repetition of clinical failings despite concerns having previously been brought to your attention and further training having been provided. • A reckless element to aspects of your clinical practice, particularly your failure to follow the correct procedures relating to blood sampling and labelling despite your awareness of the procedures and previous retraining.
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.