Nurse suspended for giving patient double medication amount

Susan Finney was employed as a mental health nurse by Alternative Futures Group, working at Lea Court Treatment and Recovery Centre in Dallam when the incident occurred.

She was also found proven to have attempted to cover up the serious incident by asking a colleague whether she could record the error as pro re nata.

Thankfully, the patient does not appear to have suffered harm as a result of the error.

The suspension order was made following a misconduct hearing held this month by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee, which ruled that her fitness to practice is impaired.

The incident in question arose on August 6, 2019, when Finney administered 5mg of diazepam to her patient instead of the prescribed dose of 2mg.

Her request for the dose to be recorded as being given pro re nata was ruled to be dishonest because she knew that the administration of 5mg had been made in error, that there were no grounds to administer 5mg pro re nata and that the request was made to conceal the above factors.

Lea Court Treatment and Recovery Centre in Dallam (Image: Google Maps)

In a reflective statement in October 2020, Finney admitted administering more than double the amount of Diazepam to a patient.

She said: “This is where I realised later on that I had popped her PRN medication of 5mg diazepam instead of the regular prescription of 2mg diazepam, as they were both in the same container.

“I must have looked at the 2mg tablets but picked the box of 5mg tablets up accidently.”

The committee heard that Finney asked her colleague if it would be possible to ‘pretend’ she gave the 5mg dose as PRN instead of reporting the error.

The colleague told Finney that the error needed to be reported, which she ‘seemed to accept’.

The panel determined that ‘ordinary, decent people would find it dishonest’ to ask a colleague whether the medication that was given incorrectly could be recorded as a PRN dose in an attempt to cover up an error.

Case presenter Adam Slack submitted that Finney had fallen below the standards expected of a registered nurse, and that the finding of dishonesty increased the seriousness of the misconduct.

He submitted that there was a risk to patients as a result of Finney’s misconduct, which had brought the nursing profession into disrepute.

READ> More than 100 Delta Covid variant cases detected in Warrington

The hearing heard how Finney has only demonstrated ‘limited insight and remorse’, instead seeking to blame others for her misconduct by stating she was not properly supported at the centre.

Mr Slack referred the panel to oral evidence from a witness who described Finney as having a ‘laissez-faire’ attitude to her errors.

He submitted that this indicated an attitudinal issue, posing a ‘high risk of repetition’.

The panel concluded that attempts to cover up the error were sufficiently serious to reach the threshold of misconduct, falling below the standards expected of a registered nurse.

As such, it decided that a finding of impairment in fitness to practise was necessary on the grounds of public protection.

Finney, who had stated that she no longer wishes to practise as a registered nurse, was handed a suspension order for six months.

The panel did consider a striking-off order, but taking everything into account and Finney’s personal circumstances at the time, it concluded that such an order would be disproportionate.