The NMC has agreed that fitness to practise cases should no longer be judged by the criminal standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Instead, as recommended in a DoH review of non-medical regulation, the civil standard of proof – ‘on the balance of probabilities’ – will be used.

The NMC council decided the move would improve consistency with other health professional regulators who, with the exception of the GMC, all use the civil standard of proof.

Doctors face a similar proposal, but are so far resisting the move.

The NMC consulted patient groups and many pointed out that a civil burden of proof would make it easier to bring cases against nurses, which would empower patients.

The council have yet to agree on when to bring in the new standard.

The council also discussed the DoH proposals concerning the role of the NMC in adjudicating fitness to practise cases. The proposals are: keeping it as it is, outsourcing adjudication, or ensuring panels were led by the NMC but drawn from a shared pool of independently trained professionals that might include doctors and pharmacists.

The council did not endorse any of the three proposals but said the third option could be a ‘useful starting point’ to be developed into something more appropriate.

The issue that caused the biggest split amongst the NMC council was whether council members should be appointed or elected. Many lay members felt appointing members would ensure skills and experience matched criteria instead of the self-selecting method of nominating for election.

The council eventually decided to have all members appointed. It also decided to keep the makeup of the council a professional majority of one to ensure nursing continues to be professionally self-regulated.