Conduct and Competence Committee
Substantive Order Review Meeting
13 October 2015
Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE
Name of Registrant Nurse:
Ms Dawn Campy
NMC PIN:
85C1008E
Part(s) of the register:
Registered Nurse – Sub Part 1
Mental Health Nursing – November 1988
Area of Registered Address:
England
Panel Members:
John Weeden (Chair/Lay member)
Patricia Lynch (Registrant member)
Bernadette Hatton (Lay member)
Legal Assessor:
Oliver Wise
Panel Secretary:
Kim Nyawira
Substantive Order being reviewed:
Suspension order – 9 months
Order Imposed:
Suspension order extended for 6 months with
effect from the expiry of the existing order
under Article 30 (1)
1
Determination on service:
The panel has considered all the information provided. It has accepted the advice of the
legal assessor that it must determine whether service has taken place according to the
NMC Fitness to Practise Rules 2004 (“the Rules”).
On 4 September 2015 a letter was sent to Ms Campy by the NMC proposing that this
review takes place at a meeting rather than a hearing. The letter asked Ms Campy to
respond by 5 October 2015 to indicate whether she wanted a hearing or a meeting. The
letter stated that if no response was received by that date, the review would be scheduled
for a meeting. No response was received from Ms Campy.
The letter giving notice was posted by recorded delivery on 4 September 2015 to Ms
Campy’s registered address. The panel is satisfied that, in accordance with Rules 11 and
34 of the NMC Fitness to Practise Rules 2004, service of notice has been duly effected.
2
Reasons:
This is the first review under Article 30(1) of a suspension order for a period of 9 months
placed upon Mrs Campy’s registration by a panel of the Conduct and Competence
Committee at a substantive hearing held on 20-21 October 2014 and on 16-17 March
2015. The facts which were found proved at the substantive hearing are as follows:
“That you, whilst employed by Bupa as Home Manager at the Dales Nursing Home,
Thornby, Bradford:
1. In relation to a complaint regarding Resident C on 21 January 2012, failed to;
a) Appropriately acknowledge the complaint;
b) Fully investigate the complaint;
2. In relation to a complaint regarding Resident D, on 25 January 2012, failed to;
a) Appropriately acknowledge the complaint;
b) Fully investigate the complaint;
3. Between 19 March 2012 and 28 March 2012 failed to report Resident A's pressure
wounds to:
a) The Care Quality Commission;
b) The Local Safeguarding Team of the Local Authority;
4. Between 28 March 2012 and 3 April 2012 failed to report Resident B's pressure sore
to:
a) The Care Quality Commission;
b) The Local Safeguarding Team of the Local Authority;
And in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct”
The panel had regard to the background of the case:
At the material time, Ms Campy was employed as Home Manager of the Dales Nursing
Home (‘the Home’) by Bupa. The Home is a multi-unit care home with 87 beds. It caters for
elderly residents with dementia who require full nursing care, although one of the units
caters additionally for residents under the age of 65 with challenging behaviour. The
charges arose from an initial discussion between Ms Campy and her Regional Manager,
3
which took place on 19 March 2012. The discussion was in relation to a resident at the
Home, Resident A, who had developed a grade 3 pressure sore. As a result of this
discussion, and further discussions over the subsequent few days, Ms Campy’s Regional
Manager became concerned about Ms Campy’s management of the Home in two areas,
namely the handling of complaints from residents’ relatives and, secondly, in relation to the
appropriate notification to the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’) and Local Safeguarding
Team of residents with pressure sores.
The substantive panel found all the charges proved and went on to find that Ms Campy’s
failings were so serious that they constituted misconduct for the purposes of impairment.
That substantive panel further concluded that, in the absence of recent insight and any
remediation, there was a risk of repetition and found that Ms Campy’s fitness to practise
was impaired on the grounds of public protection and also in the public interest. It imposed
a suspension order for a period of 9 months on her registration on 17 March 2015 to mark
the seriousness of the misconduct. This order is due to expire at the end of 15 January
2016.
In reaching its decision today, the panel has considered this case very carefully and has
had regard to the documentation before it. It accepted the advice of the legal assessor that
it must first determine whether Ms Campy’s fitness to practise is still impaired. If not, it must
allow the order to lapse. If so, it has the full range of sanctions open to it, and it should have
regard to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.
The panel exercised its independent judgment and applied the principles of fairness,
reasonableness and proportionality, and weighed the public interest against Ms Campy’s
interests. The panel reminded itself that the public interest includes the protection of
members of the public including patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the
profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and
performance.
The panel considered the determination on impairment and sanction made by the
substantive panel. It noted that Ms Campy’s failings were “out of character” and that she
was “a respected member of staff” at the Home prior to these incidents.
4
The recommendations given by the substantive hearing panel stated:
“The panel considered that a future panel reviewing this sanction may be assisted by the
following:

a reflective account from Ms Campy demonstrating insight into her misconduct which
provides assurance that the underlying causes have been addressed;

evidence of any steps Ms Campy may have taken to remediate her failings or remain
up to date with her clinical practice, through independent learning, training or
otherwise;

up to date character references or professional testimonials from Ms Campy’s place
of employment, whether or not in a healthcare setting;

any up to date information regarding Ms Campy’s current personal circumstances
and her intentions towards her nursing career.”
The panel has received no information from Ms Campy in respect of the substantive panel’s
recommendations. As a result, the panel has no information regarding Ms Campy’s current
level of insight and any remedial steps she has undertaken since the suspension order was
imposed. The panel notes that the substantive panel recorded that Ms Campy had stopped
engaging with the NMC in February 2014. It appears therefore that Ms Campy has not
engaged with the NMC in relation to these proceedings for over 18 months, which
heightens the panel’s concern regarding the potential for repetition. In the circumstances,
the panel is not satisfied that if Ms Campy were to return to practice unrestricted, she would
not repeat her misconduct.
The panel therefore determined that, in the absence of any new evidence, Ms Campy
continues to pose a risk to patient safety. As a consequence, the panel determined that Ms
Campy’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of her misconduct both on the
ground of public protection and the ground of public interest.
In addressing the issue of sanction, the panel has taken into account the Indicative
Sanctions Guidance (“ISG”). The panel considered allowing the suspension order to lapse
and to take no further action. The panel concluded that, given the absence of any evidence
to suggest how Ms Campy’s shortcomings have been remedied; her return to unrestricted
practice would continue to pose a risk to the public. For these reasons the panel concluded
5
that taking no further action would not protect patients and would not be in the public
interest.
The panel next considered replacing the current suspension order with a caution order.
However, given that a caution order would not restrict Ms Campy’s ability to practise, the
panel concluded that such an order was insufficient to protect patients and would not be in
the public interest.
The panel next considered replacing the current suspension order with a conditions of
practice order. The panel considered that there were specific areas of Ms Campy’s practice
which were potentially capable of remediation. However, the panel has not received any
evidence that Ms Campy has developed insight into her misconduct, or that she is willing to
take steps or has taken any steps to remedy it. In light of Ms Campy’s lack of meaningful
engagement with these proceedings, the panel could not be satisfied that she would comply
with any conditions of practice order imposed. Further, the panel considered that, because
Ms Campy’s lack of insight and non-engagement, the failings identified could not be
addressed by a conditions of practice order. As a result, the panel determined that, in the
circumstances of this particular case, appropriate and workable conditions could not be
formulated.
The panel then considered whether to extend the current suspension order. While there
was no evidence of insight or remediation, the panel concluded that, despite Ms Campy’s
continued non-engagement, the seriousness of the case did not lead the panel to conclude
that the only appropriate sanction was permanent removal from the register. The panel
decided that, on this occasion, a further extension of the current suspension order would be
sufficient to protect the public and serve the public interest in this matter.
The panel concluded that a 6 month extension to the current suspension order would
provide Ms Campy with a further opportunity, should she wish to take it, to reflect on her
actions and demonstrate to a future panel that she wished to remedy the failings in her
practice. In addition, Ms Campy would be able to demonstrate to a reviewing panel that she
has insight into the impact of her actions on patients, the public and the profession as a
whole. Having weighed the public interest against Ms Campy’s interests the panel
concluded that this was a proportionate response.
6
The panel gave serious consideration to a striking-off order. The panel was mindful of the
lack of evidence before it from Ms Campy demonstrating any reflection or insight or
remediation. However, it concluded that it would be disproportionate to strike her off the
register at this stage. Ms Campy should be aware that a future reviewing panel may view
her persistent non-engagement and lack of insight as indicative of deep-seated attitudinal
issues which may be fundamentally incompatible with her continued registration.
Shortly before the expiry of this order the NMC will arrange a review hearing or meeting. Ms
Campy is encouraged to engage with the NMC in this respect. As stated by the substantive
panel, a reviewing panel would be assisted by the following:

A reflective account from Ms Campy demonstrating insight into her misconduct
which provides assurance that the underlying causes have been addressed;

Evidence of any steps Ms Campy may have taken to remediate her failings or
remain up to date with her clinical practice, through independent learning, training or
otherwise;

Up to date character references or professional testimonials from Ms Campy’s place
of employment, whether or not in a healthcare setting;

Any up to date information regarding Ms Campy’s current personal circumstances
and her intentions towards her nursing career.
This determination will be confirmed to Ms Campy in writing.
That concludes this determination.
7