Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel strikes off nurse Rachel George for concealing practice conditions
The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has struck nurse Rachel George off the register, finding she worked agency shifts and administered medication in breach of an interim conditions of practice order and dishonestly concealed it from a Somerset nursing home.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 27 July 2026 · Updated 30 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 30 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 Rachel George, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 05L0415O).
Decision date: 27 July 2026 · Hearing started 20 July 2026 and ended 27 July 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Rachel George, a registered nurse, breached an interim conditions of practice order while working at a nursing home in 2020. The panel found she worked agency shifts, acted as nurse in charge, administered medication without supervision, worked without a nominated supervisor, and did not disclose her conditions to the home. It found these actions dishonest, concluded her fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a striking-off order with an 18-month interim suspension.
Charges
The NMC alleged that Mrs George, a registered nurse working at Ferns Nursing Home between 1 February and 31 May 2020, breached an Interim Conditions of Practice Order maintained by an Investigating Committee on 13 January 2020. Charge 1 alleged she undertook agency shifts on 24 and 29 April and 2, 3 and 7 May 2020, contrary to Condition 1. Charge 2 alleged she worked one or more shifts as the nurse in charge, contrary to Condition 2. Charge 3 alleged she administered medication without supervision, contrary to Condition 3. Charge 4 alleged she worked shifts without a nominated workplace line manager, mentor or supervisor present, contrary to Condition 4. Charges 5 and 6 alleged she did not disclose the full details of the order to her employer while working at the Home, or when applying and interviewing for a post there, contrary to Conditions 10(a) and 10(b). Charge 7 alleged that her actions were dishonest, in that she sought to conceal the Interim Conditions of Practice Order from her employers and prospective employers.
Findings
The panel found all charges proved. It was satisfied that Mrs George worked agency shifts at the Home on each of the five dates charged, worked as the nurse in charge, administered medication without supervision and worked without the required supervisor, relying on MAR charts, the controlled drugs book, agency invoices and the oral evidence of two witnesses. It found she did not disclose the Interim Conditions of Practice Order to the Home at application and interview or during her employment, and that she acknowledged the order only after an initial denial when she was dismissed on 21 May 2020. Applying Ivey, the panel found her conduct dishonest in that she sought to conceal the order. It concluded the facts amounted to misconduct, that all four limbs of the Grant test were engaged, and that her fitness to practise is currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds, noting no evidence of insight, remorse or strengthened practice. The hearing proceeded in her absence under Rule 21.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The panel took into account one mitigating feature: Mrs George made some admissions to Ms Wollington upon her dismissal.
Aggravating factors
The panel took into account the following aggravating features: abuse of a position of trust; conduct which deliberately or recklessly put people receiving care at risk of suffering harm; deliberate breaches of the Code; a pattern of misconduct over a period of time; failure to attend hearings, or to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason; absence of or limited insight; vulnerability of the person receiving care; and premeditated behaviour.
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.