- Ian Brown worked in a home for mentally ill male offenders.
- He stated that the activity was “more constructive” than “sitting outside smoking.”
A mental health nurse who made four vulnerable patients wash her car as part of her “therapy” has been sacked.
Ian Brown, who worked at a home for mentally ill male offenders in Ipswich, said the activity was “more constructive” than “sitting outside smoking”.
At a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) misconduct hearing, her conduct was found to be “deplorable” and “breaching the fundamental principles” of the nursing profession.
Brown qualified as a nurse in February 2018, but concerns were raised about his “unprofessional behaviour” towards both colleagues and patients in his first job.
This led to an investigation and Brown was given a final written warning.
He was then moved to Foxhall House, in Ipswich, in January 2019, and was asked to carry out a development plan for a period of six months, which focused on “values and behaviours”.
However, in August 2019, he took four residents, all of whom were placed under the Mental Health Act, to have his car cleaned.
A colleague: ‘I was on the afternoon shift. In the delivery there was nothing to report that he [Mr Brown] He took patients to wash their cars, that wasn’t talked about.
‘[Mr Brown] He said it was therapy.
Another witness said: “He came into the delivery room and as I was delivering it he said he had a job for the patients that afternoon and would ask them to wash his car.”
The disciplinary panel heard that only two of the four patients were allowed to leave.
The hearing was also told that Mr Brown responded to a disciplinary charge by saying: “I think it’s more constructive to wash a car than to sit outside smoking.”
Brown was also found to have left a door open in September 2021, meaning a patient was able to “abscond” before staff were “fortunately” able to retrieve him.
He resigned in October 2019 and was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council in November 2020.
The panel concluded that Mr Brown’s conduct constituted “serious misconduct involving numerous vulnerable residents” and potentially members of the public and which occurred over a period of time.
‘[We] “It was determined that this is conduct that shows blatant disregard for the Code and would be considered deplorable by both fellow nurses and an ordinary, informed member of the public,” they said.
‘The panel concludes that vulnerable residents, visitors, members of the public and colleagues were at risk of physical and emotional harm as a result of Mr Brown’s misconduct.
“Mr Brown’s misconduct had violated the fundamental principles of the nursing profession and had therefore brought its reputation into disrepute.”
The panel said he had “deep-seated attitudinal problems” and continued: “Mr Brown’s actions were significant departures from the standards expected of a registered nurse and are fundamentally incompatible with his continued membership on the register.”
They therefore concluded that the “appropriate and proportionate” sanction was removal from the nurses’ register.
