Gillian Graham

Introduction

Gillian Graham is a registered nurse and health visitor who was struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register on 30 July 2026. A Fitness to Practise Committee panel found that she had dishonestly declared inaccurate mileage on travel expenses, told a colleague a nursery visit had gone well when she had not attended, and repeatedly failed to keep safeguarding documentation and wellbeing records in order for families with vulnerable children on her caseload. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired and, having concluded that every lesser sanction was insufficient, directed that she be struck off.

Background Information

Graham was registered with the NMC under number 87Y0052S and worked as a health visitor, a community role focused on the health and development of young children and their families. In that role she was expected to store safeguarding documentation in an accessible manner, record wellbeing assessments using the SHANARRI indicators, maintain contact records and chronologies, undertake agreed visits, action interagency referral discussions and complete developmental checks for the families in her care.

The NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee held a substantive hearing in her case from 21 to 30 July 2026, with the decision dated 30 July 2026. Graham did not attend, and the panel proceeded in her absence. She had previously been subject to a period of enhanced monitoring by her employer, during which she was capable of making accurate mileage claims.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. What follows are findings of an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee panel, made on the civil standard of proof in regulatory proceedings — not criminal convictions. The panel proceeded in Graham’s absence. Charge 7.2 was not proved, because the evidence did not establish that she was the named Health Visitor responsible for family 6 at the relevant time; the remaining charges were found proved. Mitigation advanced on her behalf was heard and weighed on sanction.

The dishonesty findings concerned travel expenses. The panel found that on one or more occasions from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2018, Graham declared inaccurate mileage when submitting travel expenses, and that this was dishonest because she was aware she could be overpaid and knew those assessing her expenses could be misled.

A second dishonesty finding involved a nursery visit. When Colleague A enquired about her visit to a nursery, Graham incorrectly declared ’everything was fine, it went well’ or words to that effect. The panel found this dishonest because she was attempting to mislead Colleague A into believing she had attended when she knew she had not.

Charges 5 to 10 concerned six families — identified as families 4, 5, 6, 13, 22 and 48. The panel found that, knowing the children were vulnerable or living in vulnerable circumstances, Graham failed to store or file safeguarding documentation in an accessible manner, failed to document wellbeing assessments using SHANARRI indicators, failed to maintain contact and chronologies, failed to undertake agreed visits, failed to action interagency referral discussions and failed to complete developmental checks.

Taken together, the panel found the facts amounted to serious misconduct, breaching sections 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 20 of the Code, with all four limbs of Grant engaged. Graham had placed vulnerable children at unwarranted risk of harm through repeated safeguarding and record-keeping failures and brought the profession into disrepute through dishonesty over mileage claims. Her insight was found limited, her explanations focused largely on external factors, and no evidence of remediation or strengthened practice was found, leaving a significant risk of repetition. Her fitness to practise was impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The immediate consequence was erasure. On sanction, the panel concluded that no action, a caution order, conditions of practice and suspension were each insufficient, and directed the registrar to strike Graham off the register. It imposed an interim suspension order of 18 months to cover the 28-day appeal period.

The panel’s aggravating findings explain why the case ended in erasure: abuse of a position of trust as an experienced and senior nurse; conduct which deliberately or recklessly put vulnerable children and their families at risk of harm; a pattern of misconduct over a sustained period; prolonged and deliberate dishonesty for personal financial gain; and failure to engage meaningfully with the Fitness to Practise process. The dishonesty was also found premeditated — Graham returned to submitting inaccurate mileage claims after a period of enhanced monitoring, during which she was capable of making accurate claims. Against this sat mitigation in the form of her admissions regarding the inaccurate expenses claims during her employer’s investigation, and a further mitigating feature heard in private, which the panel weighed but did not treat as displacing its risk findings.

Current Status

Graham remains struck off the register — the regulator calls this “erasure”. She is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the UK, and the outcome is otherwise indefinite, though erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years. The 18-month interim suspension order covers the appeal window that followed the 30 July 2026 decision.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The erasure ends Graham’s career as a registered nurse and health visitor in the UK. The panel’s assessment of insight was central: her explanations focused largely on external factors, and with no remediation or strengthened practice, the significant risk of repetition it identified is what in practice made erasure unavoidable. The dishonesty findings — spanning January 2017 to March 2018 of mileage claims and a false account of a missed nursery visit — mean she cannot work in any role requiring NMC registration. The determination remains a public record, published by the NMC and indexed by MedicWatch.