Nurse who took home vulnerable man’s property censured

A senior nurse who took home a piece of electrical equipment delivered to a residential unit for a vulnerable man, and who concealed she had done so for a time before eventually returning it, has been censured with conditions attached to her registration.

High Court president Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the nurse was “lucky” the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI) had not asked him to confirm a more serious sanction.

This was the second time in two weeks the judge had had to address dishonesty by a nurse as last week he had made strike off orders against another who stole €9,000 from patients, he said.

Dishonesty by professionals such as nurses, doctors and solicitors “cannot be tolerated” as it damages not only the individual relationship of trust with a patient or client, it also “strikes at the very heart” of the reputation of the profession involved.

It is a serious matter when a vulnerable person in a nursing unit has their property taken, he said. This man did not get the “little bit of enjoyment he was going to get” because a senior nurse decided to take it for herself.

The man persisted in asking about the equipment, the matter was eventually picked up by other staff and the nurse returned the device to him by post some weeks later.

If the man had not persisted in asking where the equipment was, “who knows” what would have happened, the judge said.

While told the nurse was depressed at the time, it was “difficult to see how that could be an excuse for dishonesty of such a specific type”. He made the remarks when granting an application by a solicitor for the NMBI for orders censuring the nurse and imposing conditions on her registration, including requiring her to continue attending for medical treatment and to produce a psychiatric report.

Because the nurse was found to suffer from a relevant medical disability, depression, she cannot be identified.

The NMBI application arose from an incident in 2016 when the nurse took delivery of the equipment and took it home from the unit in her car.

The man was to get the equipment for free under a contract between him and a company. When the man complained he had not received it, the nurse failed to tell him she had taken possession of it.

The company confirmed the equipment was delivered and CCTV was used to establish that. Some weeks later, the man received the equipment in the post after the nurse sent it back.

During a fitness to practice inquiry held in private, the nurse admitted allegations of professional misconduct and non-compliance with the code of professional conduct for nurses arising from the incident.

She also admitted, during a conversation with the man about his contract, she failed to treat him with respect and told him he was not entitled to the free equipment under the contract.

She was found guilty of professional misconduct and non-compliance with the code of conduct. It was also found, at the time of the incident, she suffered from a relevant medical disability, depression, which may impair her ability to practice nursing.

Mr Justice Kelly was told she has made progress, is no longer clinically depressed and is working in a different facility.

He said the NMBI had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and, while he saw no good reason not to confirm the sanction proposed by it, the nurse should regard herself as lucky it was not a more serious sanction.