Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel strikes off nurse Sarah Pike over professional boundary breaches
The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has struck nurse Sarah Pike off the register, finding she breached professional boundaries with a resident, used derogatory language about a colleague in a resident's earshot, and broke Covid-19 mask rules at an Exeter care home.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 12 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 8 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 Sarah Belinda Pike, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 05F2443E).
Decision date: 12 June 2026 · Hearing started 8 June 2026 and ended 12 June 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Sarah Pike, a registered nurse at a nursing home in Exeter, failed to maintain professional boundaries with a resident by giving him her personal phone number and visiting his home to share alcohol, referred to a colleague using a derogatory term within a resident's earshot, and did not wear a face covering while working during the Covid-19 pandemic. The panel decided these attitudinal concerns amounted to misconduct, that her fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a striking-off order. Several other charges were found not proved.
Charges
The charges alleged that Ms Pike, a registered nurse at Barton Place Nursing Home, failed to maintain professional boundaries with Resident A by giving him her personal mobile number (proved), attending his home outside work hours on 26 December 2020 and sharing alcohol with him (proved), and attending his home on 28 December 2020 (not proved); communicated unprofessionally by referring to a colleague as 'a bitch' or words to that effect in earshot of Resident A (proved) and being abrupt to colleagues (not proved); failed to follow the Home's Covid-19 policy by not wearing a face covering while working shifts (proved) and sharing food with a resident (the NMC offered no evidence); and incorrectly administered a second Furosemide tablet to Resident A (not proved).
Findings
The panel found charges 1a, 1b(i), 1b(ii), 2a and 3a proved on the balance of probabilities, relying on witness and documentary evidence together with Miss Pike's own written responses. It found charges 1c, 2b and 4 not proved, and the NMC offered no evidence on charge 3b. The panel decided the proved facts amounted to misconduct, breaching standards of the NMC Code on maintaining professional boundaries, treating colleagues with respect, and infection control. It determined Miss Pike's fitness to practise is currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds, finding the concerns were attitudinal, that she had shown limited insight and no remediation, and that there was a risk of repetition.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The panel took into account the following mitigating features: Miss Pike's reported poor health at the time; a challenging working environment at the time, namely at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic; and an apology made by Miss Pike in her email correspondence to Mr Deverenne.
Aggravating factors
The panel took into account the following aggravating features: deliberate breaches of the Code; a pattern of misconduct over a period of time, particularly in respect of Miss Pike's breach of professional boundaries with Resident A; failure to attend hearings, or to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason; limited insight into her misconduct; vulnerability of the person receiving care, particularly Resident A; and failure to work collaboratively with colleagues.
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.