Decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) helps employers to make safer recruitment decisions and bars individuals it deems pose a risk to vulnerable groups from working in certain roles1.
The NMC recognises that a decision to bar a registrant raises a question about fitness to practise, namely public protection, and therefore the NMC needs to consider what steps it needs to take as a regulator to protect the public independently of the DBS.
The DBS’ approach is to place restrictions automatically where an individual is convicted of certain criminal offences (automatic barring). At the NMC, we will always consider the appropriate action to take when we become aware that a professional on our register has received a criminal conviction. Serious convictions could lead to immediate restriction from practice as well as eventual striking off.
The DBS also bars individuals on a discretionary basis in other types of cases2 (non-automatic barring). The tests and processes for DBS decisions are different to the tests and processes the NMC follows. For example, the DBS cannot call witnesses or hold a hearing. It is possible for the NMC and DBS to reach different assessments of the facts, risk and how to mitigate it.
A DBS non-automatic barring decision will lead us to look into the underlying conduct ourselves and and consider any action we need to take to protect the public and maintain professional standards and the public's trust and confidence in nurses, midwives and nursing associates. When assessing risk, the facts and seriousness of conduct, we will take into consideration both the DBS decision and any information secured from them, in addition to any other evidence we gather. We cannot, however, rely on a DBS decision alone to prove the underlying facts or assess the seriousness of the conduct. There may be cases where we are not satisfied of the facts, or we conclude either that the conduct is not serious enough to impair or that the professional’s practice is no longer impaired.
The existence of a DBS barring decision will be a legitimate consideration when approaching sanction – for example, when addressing the workability of conditions of practice. Where a fitness to practise panel is satisfied of the facts but decides that a professional subject to a barring decision shouldn’t be struck off or suspended, it will need to explain carefully how it has reached that decision, with reference to public protection, public confidence and maintaining proper professional standards in the profession.
1 Regulated activity with children and/or vulnerable adults
2 If the individual: (i) has engaged in relevant conduct; (ii) presents a risk of harm through their thoughts or beliefs and (iii) has previously worked in is currently working in, or might in the future work in regulated activity
- Download
- Email Page
- Last Updated: 27/02/2024
Want to download and print whole sections of this FtP library? Visit the downloads page.
Related guides
FtP library
-
Understanding Fitness to Practise
- Aims and principles for fitness to practise
- Allegations we consider
- How we determine seriousness
- Why we screen cases
- When we use interim orders
- Investigations
- Examining cases
- How we manage cases
- Meetings and hearings
- Resolving cases by agreement
- What sanctions are and when we might use them
-
Taking account of context
- Taking account of context - overview
- 1: We’ll approach cases on the basis that most people referred to us are normally safe
- 2: We’ll seek to build an accurate picture about the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s practising history
- 3: We’ll always carefully consider evidence of discrimination, victimisation, bullying or harassment
- 4: Where risks are caused by system and process failures, we’ll concentrate on the action we can take to help resolve the underlying issues
- 5: In cases where a nurse, midwife or nursing associate was required to use their professional judgement we’ll respond proportionately
- 6: Evidence of steps the nurse, midwife or nursing associate has taken to address serious concerns caused by a gap in knowledge or training or personal context factors
- 7: We’ll always look into whether group norms or culture influenced an individual’s behaviour before taking action
- 8: Where an incident has occurred because of cultural problems, we’ll concentrate on taking action to minimise the risk of the same thing happening again
- What context factors we think are important to know about when considering a case
- Decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)
- Insight and strengthened practice
- Engaging with your case
-
Screening
-
Our overall approach
- Our overall approach - overview
-
The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions
- The Three Questions we ask when making Screening Decisions - overview
- Do we have a written concern about a nurse, midwife or nursing associate on our register?
- Is there evidence of a serious concern that could require us to take regulatory action to protect the public
- Is there clear evidence to show that the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is currently fit to practise?
- Clinical advice
- Referrals to other regulators
- Referrers that wish to remain anonymous
- Whistleblowing
- A decision not to take any further action at this time
- Determining the regulatory concern
- Cases that may involve incorrect or fraudulent entry
-
Our overall approach
- Interim Orders
- Investigations
- Case Examiners
-
Preparing for the FtP Committee
- Reviewing cases after they are referred to the FtPC
-
Drafting charges
- Why do we have guidance on charges?
- Jargon buster
- General approach
- How a charge becomes final
- Practical drafting issues
- Particular features of misconduct charging
- Drafting charges in health cases
- Other fitness to practise charges
- Multiple allegations
- Drafting charges in incorrect or fraudulent entry cases
- Documents panels use when deciding cases
- Gathering further evidence after the investigation
- Disclosure
- Notice of our hearings and meetings
-
Case management
- Hearing fitness to practise allegations together
- Telephone conferences
- Preliminary meetings
- Considering cases at meetings and hearings
- Removal by Agreement
- Cancelling hearings
- Constitution of panels
- Proceeding with hearings when the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is absent
- Case management during hearings
- Hearings in private and in public
- When we postpone or adjourn hearings
- Supporting people to give evidence in hearings
-
FtP Committee decision making
- Impairment
- Consensual panel determination
- Offering no evidence
- Abuse of process
- Directing further investigation during a hearing
- Evidence
- Making decisions on sexual misconduct
- Making decisions on dishonesty charges and the professional duty of candour
- Agreed removal at hearings
- Deciding on incorrect or fraudulent entry
- Sanctions
-
Reviews
- Reviewing case examiner decisions
- Interim order reviews
-
Substantive order reviews
- Substantive order reviews - overview
- Standard reviews before expiry
- Early review
- Exceptional cases: changing orders with immediate effect at a standard review
- Review of striking-off orders
- New allegations
- Reviewing orders when there may have been a breach
- Reviews where an interim order is in place
- Allowing nurses, midwives or nursing associates to be removed from the register when there is a substantive order in place
- Appeals and restoration