Gines Nsamba Mabonzo Younga

Introduction

Gines Nsamba Mabonzo Younga is a former UK registered nurse and health visitor from Plymouth (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 06A1231E) whose career ended in erasure from the professional register. On 17 March 2026, at a substantive order review meeting, the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found her fitness to practise remains impaired and directed a striking-off order, to take effect on 26 April 2026. She had been on a conditions of practice order over safeguarding and record-keeping failures from late 2019 in her health visitor role, including failing to investigate or escalate an injury to a child and inaccurate clinical records. The determination is documented by MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions.

Background Information

The record identifies Younga as a registered nurse and health visitor from Plymouth and carries her registration number, 06A1231E; it refers to her throughout as Mrs Younga. It does not name her employer, and nothing in it speaks to her age, training or length of service. What it fixes is the chronology. The conduct at the heart of the case sits between September and December 2019, while she worked as a health visitor. The original charges were proved at the substantive hearing, and she was placed on a conditions of practice order over the same safeguarding and record-keeping failures from late 2019. The case returned to the regulator on 17 March 2026, when a substantive order review meeting — which started that same day — considered whether the order should continue. The page was added to MedicWatch on 3 May 2026.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings against Gines Nsamba Mabonzo Younga were made by an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee on the civil standard. They were never criminally charged or adjudicated in court.

The record states that the charges “proved at the substantive hearing concerned safeguarding and record-keeping failures while Mrs Younga worked as a health visitor”. The largest cluster concerns Child A: “having been informed on 28 November 2019 that Child A had sustained an injury, she failed to investigate, assess for possible neglect or abuse, escalate to Child Protection Services, report to social care, contact a paediatrician, seek supervisor advice, or accurately record the injury location”. Related charges held that she “failed to recognise Child A’s faltering growth as a safeguarding issue” and “failed to access clinical supervision”.

The record-keeping charges touch two other children, identified only by letter. On 1 October 2019 she “inaccurately recorded in Child B’s notes that a piece of sponge was found in Child B’s uterus”. Between September and December 2019 she “repeatedly failed to comply with employer record-keeping policy and failed to ensure her electronic and paper diaries were compatible”, and she “failed to record meetings concerning Child F”. Because this page documents a review decision, it does not restate the original panel’s reasoning charge by charge; what it records is the outcome of that review.

At the review, the panel “found Mrs Younga’s fitness to practise remains impaired”. It concluded her insight had “remained limited and self-focussed”, that she had “not provided a reflective piece or testimonial as suggested by previous panels”, and that she had “referred to her conduct as ‘a mistake’ despite the charges being similar repeated incidents over a period of time”. She had also “failed to address how she would do things differently in future or the most serious safeguarding charges”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

This was not a public controversy in the ordinary sense, and the record does not pretend otherwise: it contains no press coverage, no employer statement and no comment from Younga. What it documents is regulatory consequence. The review panel determined that a continuing finding of impairment was required on both “public protection and public interest grounds”, and directed a striking-off order, ending the conditions of practice order that had governed her practice since late 2019. The findings now form part of the permanent public record of NMC decisions, indexed against her name and her registration number.

Current Status

As of the decision date of 17 March 2026, Younga stands struck off the register, with the striking-off order taking effect on 26 April 2026 — the outcome the regulator calls erasure. Per the determination’s own explainer, being struck off “removes the practitioner from the register”, and the person struck off is “no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK”. Erasure, the explainer continues, “can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite” — which places the earliest possible review no earlier than 2031. The record goes no further: it does not record any appeal or restoration application. Until any future review, the striking-off order stands as the operative outcome.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The erasure ends Younga’s career as a nurse and health visitor in the UK. She cannot work in any role that requires NMC registration, and the findings at the core of the case — the uninvestigated, unescalated injury to Child A, the inaccurate entry in Child B’s notes, and the repeated record-keeping failures — are recorded against her registration number permanently. The panel’s reasoning at the review is the best measure of why erasure, and not a further conditions order, was chosen: her insight had remained “limited and self-focussed” through years on the conditions of practice order, she had not produced the reflective piece previous panels suggested, and she framed a series of safeguarding failures across months as “a mistake” while leaving the most serious charges unaddressed. What remains public is the committee’s account: a health visitor who, on being told a child had been injured, failed to investigate or escalate — and who, years later, the panel found, had still not shown she would act differently.