Senior nurse 'filed inaccurate info' on niece’s timesheet, hearing told

Wendy Gilbert is accused of signing off one or more timesheets for the employee, who was a student nurse at the time the offences are alleged to have happened, between April 13, 2020 and May 3, 2020.

It is alleged that inaccurate information relating to the amount of clinical hours the employee had worked was input.

Ms Gilbert is also accused of signing off the employee’s final assessment on or around June 14, 2020 despite not being a registered assessor, and signed it off with incomplete or inaccurate information relating to the employee’s sickness absence.

The charges are subject to change and can be amended by a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) substantive hearing panel until they are proven.

The hearing heard that Ms Gilbert is currently the deputy manager of a nursing home in Church Stretton. However, the place where the alleged incidents are said to have taken place has not been disclosed.

Giving evidence on the first day of the hearing on Monday (September 29), Deborah Millington, who is currently the clinical quality lead at NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, said she investigated Ms Gilbert’s alleged conduct with a statement written on her behalf on May 31, 2023.

She was asked by Ms Gilbert, who was not represented, what made her come to the conclusion that Ms Gilbert had been dishonest about the amount of sickness absence that had been input, which she stated, and still states, she never saw.

“My feeling is you’d signed the form,” said Ms Millington.

“Even if you hadn’t seen that, it’s incumbent on you to make sure that form is correctly completed.

“My understanding from my memory was that you weren’t actually an assessor so shouldn’t have been signing the form anyway.

“On top of that, you have been a Band 7 ward manager and have more knowledge of how the e-roster and shift patterns work. You have full understanding of what is expected of somebody.”

'Beyond that work relationship'

Ms Millington told the panel that "from memory" there were times when forms were signed outside the workplace.

“They were signed when they were both off sick and when even at somebody’s house,” she said.

“So it took it beyond that work relationship.”

Ms Millington explained that the university the student nurse was attending carried out its own investigation. However, she was advised not to speak to the student because it could compromise it.

“It would have been easier for me to be able to talk to her as well, but I was advised not to,” said Ms Millington.

“If I had been allowed to speak to the student, that might have had some bearing because you get a different verion of what occurred.

“But I still believe, by the conclusion I came to, that there was sufficient evidence there, with or without the student nurse’s thoughts on all of this.

“What we were seeing was somebody who didn’t follow processes and didn’t follow the correct pathways, and it concerns me. A huge part of a nurse’s role is communication and documentation, and you need that to be honest.

“Ms Gilbert is a senior nurse and had signed a form she knows she is not able to sign, and even if she didn’t write those zeros in, she still signed a form where they are blank.

“She would know that form would have had to be completed thoroughly and it would be incumbent on her to check those things. So for me, there was enough evidence there to draw up quite a lot of concern.

“I don’t know who wrote those zeros. All know is I’ve got a signed form by the student and by Ms Gilbert.”

'If you didn't know, you would question what you were signing'

The hearing heard that there is a suggestion that above Ms Gilbert’s signature was her name printed in different pen writing.

“I would have needed to have spoken to the student to find out if she had [written] it, but there wasn’t any crossing out so clearly to me, this form may well have been filled in by that person,” said Ms Millington.

“But ultimately, Ms Gilbert signed it so say it was accurate. And that was my concern. She would have known what the forms looked like due to being a previous assessor.

“And if you didn’t know, you would question what you were signing.

“Wendy had already had a final warning for something to do with the e-roster. Those would have been things that fed into my decision-making.”

The hearing heard that, because she was a junior, the student nurse was asked to write a reflection piece.

“She wouldn’t have known all the processes, but she still should have absolutely checked and had known better,” said Ms Millington.

“But she wouldn’t have had access to the e-roster whereas Ms Gilbert would have done. She should have checked and not signed it.”

Ms Millington was asked if there were any policies regarding employees who are related to one another, and if it had any bearing on her investigation.

“I couldn’t find any policies on that,” she said.

“There were a total of seven or eight shifts they worked together and Ms Gilbert would definitely have been in charge so they would have had less time working together.

“Within the trust, there were people working together and I remember a husband and wife working together.

“I wasn’t questioning that Ms Gilbert would specifically choose to favour her niece. Ms Gilbert wasn’t her mentor. I don’t know why she signed it off.

“At the back of your mind, you must be aware [that they were related] but it had no bearing [on her approach].

“This wasn’t just falsifying a timesheet in a hurried manner, it was going on an e-roster and amending things there. So for me, this was far more serious and whether it was a relative or not, it was not appropriate.”

The hearing is set to continue on Wednesday (October 1).