Thursday, February 22, 2024
NewsHealthScots carer struck off register after depriving service user of food and...

Scots carer struck off register after depriving service user of food and medicine, and leaving another in their own urine

A SCOTS care worker has been struck off after she deprived a service user of food and medicine, and left another lying in their own urine.

Mandy Brown was found guilty of committing a slew of offences over more than two years between January 2020 and October 2022.

Bankhouse Care Home in Lanark.
Bankhouse Care Home in Lanark. (C) Google Maps

The disgraced care assistant was employed at Bankhouse Care Home in Lanark, South Lanarkshire when she was found to have neglected to give food to the unnamed service user several times.

Brown falsely told a colleague “don’t give him that, she’s been fed” when she hadn’t, and also shouted at the same user whilst pulling her along a corridor by his trousers.

She also falsely informed colleagues that appropriate care had been given and medicines administered to the user, also falsely recording this in the Medical Administration Record.

Brown was further found guilty of leaving a different service user in urine-soaked clothes, telling a colleague to “just leave her, we will get to her later”.

She then told a colleague to “keep away from him, he is nasty” in regards to yet another service user.

It was also discovered that Brown had failed to register with the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) prior to her employment as a Support Worker at 121 Care at Home Limited, Glasgow in 2022.

Brown’s actions led to a hearing of the SSSC watchdog to consider her fitness to practise.

The panel agreed that Brown’s fitness to practice was impaired, stating: “Your behaviour sits at the higher end of the seriousness scale.

“You have behaved in a way which was likely to cause the service users in your care physical, emotional and psychological harm in a place where they should feel safe and cared for.

“The practice you demonstrated was abusive and neglectful towards several extremely vulnerable service users.

“You have deliberately falsified AA’s MAR sheet to say that you had administered aspirin and atenolol when you had not.

“You failed to prescribe medication to AA and therefore put AA’s health and wellbeing at risk. You have also attempted to mislead your employer by falsifying AA’s MAR sheet.

“By acting dishonestly you breached the trust and confidence placed on you by your employer and AA. c. you administered diazepam to AA when he did not need it.

“AA would be administered diazepam, if and when he required it, however you administered this medication to AA at times when he did not require it.

“There could have been a serious impact on AA’s health and wellbeing by your actions.

“Service users have the right to expect that the care and support they receive from social service workers will protect them from harm, however your behaviour failed to meet the relevant standards of practice expected of a social service worker and placed AA at a serious risk of harm.”

Brown was found to have shown no remorse with the panel reasoning: “You have shown very little insight, regret, or remorse for your behaviour.

“There is a high risk that you would repeat this type of behaviour in the future if you were to continue to work in the sector.

“Your behaviour demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in which you placed vulnerable service users at a serious risk of harm.

“Your behaviour was a breach of the trust placed in you by your employer and service users.

“The SSSC believes that you present an ongoing public protection risk because of the underlying values issue that your behaviour represents.”

The panel agreed that a removal from the register was the most appropriate action.

They stated: “A warning would not be appropriate as it would not adequately address the impairment of your fitness to practice.

“The behaviour is extremely serious. A warning would give no protection to service users or the public.

“The SSSC considers a Removal Order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession.”

Related Stories