Misconduct among nurses and midwives: A Retrospective Descriptive Study of cases handled at the Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council from 2017 to 2021
Keywords:
Disciplinary cases, Misconduct, Midwifery, Nursing, Profession, Regulation, Uganda Nurses and Midwives CouncilAbstract
Background
Media reports on the misconduct of nurses and midwives, including cases of fake credentials, drug theft, and incompetence, are on the rise. However, there are no published studies currently addressing this issue in Uganda. Therefore, to inform effective regulation of the profession, we analysed the misconduct cases involving nurses and midwives reported to the Uganda Nurses and Midwives Council between 2017 and 2021.
Methods
The study retrospectively described misconduct cases received and handled at UNMC from 2017 to 2021 and their outcomes. Following total population sampling, data were extracted from case files and then input into a structured questionnaire. Analysis was done using Excel and SPSS version 27 to determine means and proportions.
Results
The analysis of 172 misconduct cases received at the Council from 2017 to 2021 unveiled several key insights. Notably, females comprised 85% of the cases, while non-professionals represented 69%. Among these cases, those at the certificate level constituted 76%. Private for-profit Training Institutions were linked to 39% of the cases. Additionally, 51% of the individuals involved were employed. The Eastern region had the highest contribution, accounting for 32% of the cases. The Council identified 93.6% of the cases, with the highest influx occurring in 2017, where both professionals (those registered by the Council) and non-professionals (those as yet to register with the Council) accounted for 25 and 40 cases, respectively. The types of cases handled encompassed Forgery, Impersonation, Insubordination, Negligence, and Professional incompetence. Forgery emerged as the most prevalent offence among both professionals and non-professionals, constituting 96% and 95% of the cases, respectively. As of April 2023, 39% of the cases had concluded. Resolutions varied and included Attachment, Cautioning, De-registering, Dismissal, denial of registration, and Referral to the police. The most common resolution method was public disclosure in the newspapers, accounting for 37.3% of cases.
Conclusion and recommendation
The study identified that the highest number of misconduct cases involved non-professionals at the certificate level, with forgery being the most common offense. Most cases were
References
1. Azuri, P., Haron, Y., Riba, S., & Sar-Lev, S. (2014). Disciplinary procedures against Israeli nurses. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 4(4), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30117-4
2. Cooke, H. (2006). Examining the disciplinary process in nursing: a case study approach. Work, employment and society, 20(4), 687-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006069809
3. Ebong, B. P. (2024). Govt to deregister abusive nurses, midwives. The Daily Monitor.
4. Etukuri, C. (2022). Nurse, 3 interns arrested with stolen medical drugs in Runkungiri. New Vision.
5. Gabbioneta, C., Faulconbridge, J. R., Currie, G., Dinovitzer, R., & Muzio, D. (2019). Inserting professionals and professional organizations in studies of wrongdoing: The nature, antecedents, and consequences of professional misconduct. Human Relations, 72(11), 1707-1725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809400
6. Kenward, K. (2008). Discipline of nurses: a review of disciplinary data 1996-2006. JONA'S Healthcare Law, Ethics and Regulation, 10(3), 81-84. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NHL.0000300787.36649.77
7. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103
8. Kunyk, D., & Deschenes, S. (2019). Disciplinary decisions regarding professional nurses: exploring regulatory decisions in a western Canadian province. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 10(3), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(19)30145-0
9. Maurits, E. E., de Veer, A. J., Groenewegen, P. P., & Francke, A. L. (2016). Dealing with professional misconduct by colleagues in home care: a nationwide survey among nursing staff. BMC Nursing, 15, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-016-0182-2
10. Millbank, J. (2019). Serious misconduct of health professionals in disciplinary tribunals under the National Law 2010-17. Australian Health Review, 44(2), 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18239
11. MoH, U. (2023). The Republic of Uganda Ministry of Health Consolidated performance report Quarter 4 FY 2022/2023.
12. Muzio, D., Faulconbridge, J., Gabbioneta, C., & Greenwood, R. (2016). Bad apples, bad barrels and bad cellars: a 'boundaries' perspective on professional misconduct. Organizational wrongdoing, 2, 141-175. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316338827.007
13. Papinaho, O.,
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Barbara Okiror, Christine Nimwesiga, Patience Muwanguzi, Tom D. Ngabirano, Mercy Muwema Mwanja (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
