Mandy June Jilley
Introduction
Mandy June Jilley is a nurse who worked at Uplands Hospital and Kitnocks Nursing Home and was registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), the professional regulator for nurses in the UK, under reference number 85Y3702E. On 26 June 2026, an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee struck her off the register — the regulator calls this “erasure” — after finding a series of failures in her care of three patients, referred to in the published determination only as Patient A, Patient B and Patient C, together with statements made to investigators that the panel found dishonest. The findings were regulatory findings made on the civil standard of proof; they were not criminal convictions.
Background Information
The charges of misconduct concerned Jilley’s work at two care settings, Uplands Hospital and Kitnocks Nursing Home, and related to her care of three patients anonymised in the determination as Patient A, Patient B and Patient C. The allegations covered five broad areas: documentation of a restraint incident; the monitoring and escalation of a deteriorating patient; statements made during the NMC’s investigation; the completion and updating of care plans; and the timing of antipsychotic medication administered to a resident.
The NMC brought the case to a substantive hearing before a Fitness to Practise Committee, which sat from 11 November 2025 to 26 June 2026. The committee considered each charge individually, finding some proved and others not proved, before moving on to the questions of misconduct, current impairment and sanction.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings against Mandy June Jilley were made by an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee on the civil standard (balance of probabilities). They were never criminal charges and were never adjudicated in court.
The proved findings began with Patient A. The committee found that a note recording the restraint of Patient A gave insufficient detail, and that Jilley did not mark the entry as retrospective, leaving the record without a clear indication of when it had actually been made.
The most serious care findings concerned Patient B. Having taken Patient B’s observations, Jilley did not update the NEWS2 chart with a score. As Patient B’s condition deteriorated, she did not call an ambulance. In the plain-language summary of the determination, she “did not record a NEWS2 score or call an ambulance for a deteriorating patient”.
During the investigation that followed, Jilley made two statements the panel found dishonest: she incorrectly stated that she had no knowledge of Patient B’s pressure sore, and she stated that she had called an ambulance but got an engaged tone. Neither account withstood scrutiny. The panel later characterised this dishonesty as conduct done to “deliberately cover up where things had gone wrong”, in circumstances “involving a direct risk to patients”.
Two further groups of charges were also proved. Jilley did not complete and update care plans, and she administered Olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication, to Patient C at the wrong time on three dates without seeking medical advice from a GP.
Not everything alleged against her was found proved. The panel found not proved the allegation that she failed to countersign or amend a colleague’s incident report, and the charges concerning her alleged failure to take appropriate action to treat Patient B’s grade 2 pressure sore. Those matters therefore form no part of the findings against her. Of the proved charges, the panel found that the conduct — other than the care-plan failures — amounted to misconduct.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The committee found Jilley’s fitness to practise currently impaired on the grounds of public protection and public interest. It cited a “significant risk of repetition in the absence of insight and reflection” and concluded that her dishonesty and refusal to take responsibility amounted to a “deep-seated attitudinal issue”.
On sanction, the panel determined that the only appropriate and proportionate outcome was removal from the register. It directed the registrar to strike Jilley off and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order to cover the 28-day appeal period following the decision.
The determination entered the public record through MedicWatch, which added its summary of the case on 9 July 2026 and states that it “does not editorialise the regulator’s findings”.
Current Status
Jilley remains struck off the NMC register. The regulator notes that erasure “can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite”, meaning any application to return would be at least five years away and could still be refused. The 18-month interim suspension order covers the appeal window opened by the 26 June 2026 decision; the published record does not state whether an appeal was in fact lodged.
Impact on Their Career/Life
For a nurse, erasure is the most severe sanction available to the NMC: it removes the practitioner from the register, so she is “no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK”. The decision therefore ended her nursing registration outright rather than imposing a fixed period of conditions or suspension.
In mitigation, the panel weighed evidence that Jilley had continued “to undertake roles in healthcare related settings” and had produced “evidence of wide-ranging CPD undertaken between 2019 and 2024”. Against this it set aggravating factors it found more compelling: a “Consistent theme of avoidance of responsibility”, lack of insight and reflection into the misconduct found proved, conduct which “recklessly put vulnerable people receiving care at risk of suffering harm”, “a pattern of misconduct on a number of occasions”, and dishonesty committed to cover up failures involving direct risk to patients.
The published determination fixes the regulatory outcome but leaves much unstated. It does not record Jilley’s current employment, her personal circumstances, or whether she intends to seek restoration to the register after the five-year minimum. What it does record is the panel’s core conclusion: that the combination of repeated failures, dishonesty to cover them up, and a refusal to take responsibility made striking her off the only proportionate outcome.