Xoisa Hlatshwayo
Introduction
Xoisa Hlatshwayo is a United Kingdom adult nurse who was erased from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register on 30 April 2026, at the close of a Fitness to Practise Committee substantive hearing held between 22 and 30 April 2026. The panel found that, while serving as Clinical Lead at a care home, she failed to follow controlled drugs procedures, forged a colleague’s signature in the controlled drugs book, sought to persuade the colleague to sign for administrations she had not witnessed, and slept while on duty over a prolonged period. Finding her fitness to practise impaired, it imposed a striking-off order and an 18-month interim suspension order.
Background Information
MedicWatch’s practitioner record lists Hlatshwayo’s specialty as adult nursing and carries her NMC PIN, 09F2144E. The matters decided in April 2026 concerned Hollies Care Home, where Hlatshwayo was Clinical Lead and the most senior nurse on duty, responsible for the home’s controlled drugs, including the controlled drugs check and the administration of controlled medicines to residents. Entries in the controlled drugs book required a second signature confirming that a witness had seen the administration. The charges spanned January 2023 to 12 April 2024 and centred on that register and on Colleague A, a junior colleague whose signature appeared on the records. The NMC alleged that witness signatures had been recorded for administrations that were never witnessed.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings in this section come from a Nursing and Midwifery Council fitness-to-practise panel determination, which decided the charges on the balance of probabilities. Charges found proved are court-of-record-equivalent regulatory findings; Hlatshwayo was found NOT proved on sleeping on duty during the night shift of 11 to 12 April 2024, on dispensing or administering medication before it was due, and on removing residents’ MAR charts without authorisation. Several proved strands were proved by Hlatshwayo’s own admission, and the dishonesty finding attached to those admitted charges. Panels do not convict; nothing here is a criminal conviction unless the determination itself records one.
The panel found proved, by Hlatshwayo’s own admission, that during the night shift on 11 to 12 April 2024 at Hollies Care Home she failed to follow the controlled drugs procedure both when carrying out the controlled drugs check and when administering controlled drugs; that she sought to persuade Colleague A to sign documentation to reflect that she had witnessed the administration of controlled drugs when she had not; and that she forged Colleague A’s signature in the controlled drug book.
On other dates between January 2023 and 12 April 2024, the panel found proved that she slept whilst on duty, and proved by admission that she sought to persuade Colleague A to sign documentation and forged her signature in the controlled drug book. It further found that these actions were dishonest, in that they sought to mislead others that she had complied with controlled drugs protocols — a finding made in relation to the admitted charges.
Three charges failed: the panel found not proved that she slept on duty during the night of 11 to 12 April 2024 specifically, that she dispensed or administered medication before it was due, and that she removed residents’ MAR charts without authorisation.
On impairment, the panel held that her actions fell seriously short of the standards expected of a registered nurse and amounted to misconduct, describing the dishonesty as “premeditated, longstanding and at the upper end of the scale of seriousness”. It found she had repeatedly bypassed controlled drug procedures and attempted to hide the failings through a cover-up involving the forgery of a colleague’s signature; her insight was limited and a deep-seated attitudinal issue was identified. The panel weighed her early admissions, evidence of safe and effective practice since the incidents, positive employer reports, relevant training, and openness with colleagues including acting as a student advocate, against aggravating factors: abuse of a position of trust, conduct that recklessly put people receiving care at risk of harm, deliberate breaches of the Code, a prolonged pattern of misconduct, premeditated behaviour, limited insight, and involving a junior colleague in the dishonesty and covering it up when challenged by the manager. It directed erasure as her conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register, with an 18-month interim suspension order to cover any appeal period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The outcome was published by the NMC as the determination of the substantive hearing, and MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulators’ decisions, added the case on 11 July 2026, recording the outcome as erasure — struck off the register. The striking-off order directs removal from the register, with the decision setting out when the direction takes effect and the appeal provisions. The determination also recorded positive reports about Hlatshwayo from her employer; the panel struck her off notwithstanding that mitigation, on the basis that the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
Current Status
Hlatshwayo remains erased from the NMC register. MedicWatch’s practitioner page, last verified against the NMC register on 14 July 2026, records her as erased from the register at the last register check, with the 30 April 2026 erasure as her most recent decision. The interim suspension order runs for 18 months to cover the appeal period.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The erasure ended Hlatshwayo’s ability to practise as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom, since roles requiring NMC registration are closed to someone removed from the register. The panel’s characterisation of the dishonesty as premeditated and at the upper end of the scale of seriousness, together with its findings of limited insight and a deep-seated attitudinal issue, underpinned its conclusion that her conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register. The determination also recorded mitigation bearing on her standing before the matters emerged — early admissions, safe practice since the incidents, positive employer reports, and work as a student advocate — but those factors did not prevent the striking-off direction, which the panel grounded in public protection and the wider public interest.