The NMC reaches a decision on an ex-RAF nurse’s conduct in Shropshire over money she received for attending a conference
The NMC has reaced a decision regarding a hearing into the conduct of a former RAF nurse in Shropshire
A former Royal Air Force (RAF) nurse knowingly received money for a conference she did not attend, an NMC hearing has ruled - while finding that her condict was not dishonest.
Four of the six charges that Deborah Hudson faced at a Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) substantive fit to practice hearing have been found to be proven.
It related to a primary health care conference that Mrs Hudson attended on May 11 and 12, 2025. At the time, she worked as a practice nurse at RAF Shawbury, but she she has since left the position and is now a nurse practitioner at a GP surgery.
Mrs Hudson denied that she wrongly received and retained payment for study leave. She was not granted payments for the purpose of attending the conference when she did not attend. Yet she wrongly submitted expenses claims for those dates. In total, Mrs Hudson claimed for £70.15 in travel and subsistence expenses, while she would have received around £280 in paid leave.
Mrs Hudson also did not accept that, on October 20, 2022, in a meeting with a colleague, she incorrectly stated that she had a certificate of attendance for the conference, but had not brought it to the meeting.
However, the panel found both of the charges as proven, stating that attendance at the conference did not just mean entering into the venue, but also participating and actively engaging in lectures.
“Whilst the registrant had the intention of attending the conference and had done her best to do so, she did not attend with the capacity required,” said the panel.
Mrs Hudson had previously admitted another charge, that was also proven. This was that, on September 6, 2022, in a meeting with another colleague, she incorrectly stated she had attended one or more sessions at the relevant conference, and had a certificate of attendance, but it had been shredded.
The panel did conclude, however, that Mrs Hudson’s conduct was not dishonest. Members are now set to decide whether the facts that have been proved amount to misconduct and her fitness to practice is impaired.
