The High Court has upheld a decision to erase a nurse from the register after finding that her conduct during an overnight shift at a nursing home fell seriously below professional standards and put residents in danger.
Mr Justice McGovern delivered judgment on 28 July 2006 after a complete rehearing of the nurse’s appeal under the Nurses Act 1985. She challenged both the Fitness to Practice Committee’s finding of professional misconduct and its sanction, imposed after a hearing in September and October 2005.
The allegations concerned a shift on 14 and 15 August 2002 at Stella Maris Nursing Home in Commer, Tuam, where the nurse worked part-time. The committee had found her guilty of allegations including remaining on duty while unfit, failures concerning residents’ medication and records, sleeping while on duty, appearing intoxicated, and failing to provide proper care and supervision. It did not find that she had a physical or mental disorder rendering her unfit to practise.
At the High Court rehearing, carers described finding the nurse on the floor, with medication scattered nearby, and later asleep on a couch. They said her speech was slurred and there was a brown stain around her mouth. A nurse arriving for the next shift said medicines were mixed together on a trolley, making it impossible to identify which belonged to which resident. The judge accepted the evidence of two witnesses and found the evidence of the next-shift nurse credible. He also noted that the nurse gave no explanation for her behaviour and was vague and unconvincing in her evidence.
A psychiatrist told the court that the nurse had not been fit for duty for a period during the night, but could not identify why her condition had occurred and said there might have been an underlying medical cause. The judgment records that no resident suffered adverse consequences.
The judge found the nurse guilty of professional misconduct, concluding that her conduct was disgraceful and seriously below accepted nursing standards. He said the committee’s sanction was proper because her conduct placed residents in danger and public protection required her removal from the register. The High Court refused the relief sought and directed An Bord Altranais to erase her name from the register. The judgment does not specify any further order.