Merja Hannele Hiidenkari

Introduction

Merja Hannele Hiidenkari is a registered nurse who was struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register after a Fitness to Practise Committee proved charges concerning an attempt to administer an excessive dose of dihydrocodeine, a discriminatory comment about Nigerian nurses made in her correspondence with the regulator, and a private health matter. The patient concerned refused the tablets, so the excessive dose was never administered, and the panel acknowledged that the discriminatory email was an isolated incident with no evidence of a wider pattern. It nonetheless found her fitness to practise impaired on public protection and public interest grounds and imposed a striking-off order.

Background Information

Hiidenkari was registered with the NMC under number 97L0021C. Her case was heard by the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee at a substantive hearing that opened on 9 September 2026 and ended the following day, with the decision dated 10 September 2026. The outcome — described by the regulator as erasure — directs her removal from the register, meaning she may no longer practise as a nurse in the UK. The published record does not identify her employer, workplace or location, and this page does not speculate about them. The determination was recorded by MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulators’ decisions, which published the case on 10 September 2026 and last updated it on 22 September 2026.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The medication and correspondence findings against Merja Hiidenkari were made by the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee, which proved the charges after a hearing; they are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal charge is recorded on this page. The panel itself found the discriminatory email was an isolated incident with no evidence of a wider pattern, and her health-related particulars were heard in private and are not disclosed here.

The committee proved three charges. The first concerned private health matters: those particulars were heard in private and are not disclosed in the published record, and they are not set out on this page. The second was an attempt to administer 90mg of dihydrocodeine when 30mg had been prescribed for Patient A. The patient refused the tablets, so the excessive dose was not administered — but the panel found there was a real risk of harm to Patient A, that Hiidenkari had failed to collaborate with colleagues to identify and address issues arising from the medication error, and that she had not recorded Patient A’s refusal to accept the medication as would have been expected of her in the circumstances. The third charge concerned a discriminatory comment about Nigerian nurses made in her correspondence with the NMC.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The consequences of the case played out through the regulator rather than through any documented public campaign: the published record contains no social-media reaction, and none is invented here. The panel found Hiidenkari’s fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. In assessing the correspondence charge it recognised that the email was an isolated incident, found no evidence of discrimination against patients and no evidence of a wider pattern, and did not consider it necessary to decide whether the views expressed were deep-seated.

The panel also weighed mitigating factors: there was no evidence of previous or repeated discriminatory comments, and, with specific regard to the correspondence charge, the impact of the alleged bullying she had experienced and the alleged discrimination contained within her own email to the NMC. One further mitigating factor in the published record is marked private and is not reproduced on this page. Against that, it set aggravating factors: her lack of insight and reflection into the misconduct, her failure to engage in the Fitness to Practise process without good reason, the absence of any apologies or acknowledgement of the risk of harm, the failures around the medication error described above, and the real risk of harm to Patient A. It found no recent engagement and no evidence of insight, reflection or remediation sufficient to address the concerns, and concluded that a striking-off order was required, with an 18-month interim suspension to cover the appeal period.

Current Status

Hiidenkari is struck off the NMC register. An 18-month interim suspension order covers the 28-day appeal period that follows the decision; if no appeal is made, the final striking-off order replaces the interim order 28 days after written notification. No appeal outcome has been reported in the published determination as of its last update on 22 September 2026, which stands as the record of the panel’s findings, its reasoning and its sanction.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order removes Hiidenkari from the NMC register and ends her ability to practise as a registered nurse in the UK, subject only to the appeal window noted above. The panel’s findings will travel with the record of the case: it identified no recent engagement, insight, reflection or remediation, no apologies, and no acknowledgement of the risk of harm to Patient A. At the same time, the determination preserves the qualifications the panel itself drew — that the discriminatory email was an isolated incident, that there was no evidence of patient discrimination or a wider pattern, and that there was no evidence of previous or repeated discriminatory comments. For a nurse struck off after an attempted excessive dose and discriminatory correspondence, the practical effect is that her registered career ends unless the outcome is disturbed on appeal within the 28-day period.

Sources

• MedicWatch, “NMC orders Merja Hannele Hiidenkari struck off after misconduct and health case,” September 10, 2026 — source