Nurse accused of filling out inaccurate timesheets relating to her niece was 'a tower of strength', hearing told
A nurse who is accused of filling out inaccurate timesheets and assessments relating to her niece has been described by a former colleague as a “tower of strength”.
Wendy Gilbert was a Band 6 nurse at The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust (SaTH) at the time the incidents are alleged to have happened between April 13 and May 3 of 2020.
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 signing 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, who is now deputy manager at Stretton Hall Nursing Home in Church Stretton, worked on Ward 28 at the trust. SaTH’s website states that it is a Frailty and Frailty Assessment Unit at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.
Giving evidence to the hearing this week, ward manager Sharon Main said she has known Ms Gilbert for about 20 years.
“She helped me through an NVQ and in my training, and was my boss at one time as a Band 7 on the stroke rehab ward,” said Ms Main.
“Following a redeployment, I was asked by my senior managers, with HR involvement, if I would be happy to accept Wendy as a Band 6 [nurse] on Ward 28. I had no qualms about that, we’re both professional nurses.
“I know Wendy as a good nurse. Wendy and I have always had, I feel, a very good working relationship. She has been a tower of strength during my career progression.”
The hearing heard that Ms Main was a Band 7 nurse, who had overall accountability of the ward, However, a Band 6 nurse would run the ward if she wasn’t there, said Ms Main, who added that she had no concerns about Ms Gilbert.
However, Ms Main was informed that Ms Gilbert had signed documentation in relation to a student nurse, whom she later found out was her niece.
“There were also discrepancies around her attendance on her timesheet and been signed by another RN [registered nurse],” said Ms Main.
“I was informed by one of my head nurses of what had occurred and advised what I needed to do.”
Ms Main said she was told that she had to stop the student nurse, referred to as Employee 1, from coming to the ward. She also had to prevent Ms Gilbert from having access to the e-roster – a database that contains various details related to staff shifts, sickness, training, and skill mix.
Ms Main provided a statement on June 9, 2023 and was asked to produce a timeline in relation to the assessment document.
The hearing heard that Employee 1 was one of two students who were brought in to help staff due to the Covid pandemic.
“It was a very difficult time for everybody on how to manage things,” said Ms Main.
“We were very glad that we got help, but I wasn’t told that we had to get these people through their training. I think they were being paid from Covid money.”
Ms Main said she was only made aware after the alleged incidents happened that Ms Gilbert and Employee 1 were related. She told the hearing that there would have been a conflict of interest, but she didn’t see it as a problem.
“I wouldn’t have had a problem with her having a family member [work with her], because I have known Wendy for a long time and how she works,” said Ms Main, adding that she wasn’t aware of the trust having any policies with regards to family members working together.
The hearing has heard that Employee 1 was told to write “a reflective piece” following the alleged incidents. The panel has therefore directed the NMC to make enquiries to obtain it, as well as the investigation report that the university produced and any other relative documents.
“We appreciate this document [the reflective piece] is not currently in the possession of the NMC, but we think it wouldn’t be unreasonable to make enquiries of the university to see whether they still have that document and whether it could be provided to the panel because we think it is relevant,” said the panel’s chair, Rachel Forster.
“Institutions keep documents for five to seven years, it shouldn’t be something that is unreasonable to see if we can obtain it. We have also asked the hearings coordinator to make enquiries with the case preparation team to see whether Employee 1 is still a registered nurse.
“Once we have that information, we will be in a better position to make an assessment as to whether it’s proportionate to call her to give evidence.”
The hearing continues.
