Lancashire care home nurse admitted errors

Geoffery Thompson was working at the Leonard Cheshire Disability Oakland’s Care Home in Dimples Lane, Garstang with disabled people when he was accused of:

• Not highlighting a resident’s anti-rejection medication was due

• On one or more occasions over a 17 day period did not administer the anti-rejection medication

• Not informing a manager of not giving the medication

• Used inappropriate language and/or behaved inappropriately, using swear words to residents and colleagues. It was also alleged he slammed a door in a resident’s face.

• Asked a care support worker to administer medication to residents

• Administered controlled medication without a witness being present

• Asked a colleague to sign the Controlled Drugs Book knowing they had not witnessed the preparation and/or administration.

• Was dishonest.

At a hearing held over 
December 20 to 22, Mr Thompson admitted all the charges apart from swearing and dishonesty.

He admitted using inappropriate language, but denied saying specific swear words listed.

He also denied inappropriate behaviour, including slamming the door, and this was not proved. Dishonesty was also not proved.

The panel concluded: “The panel was of the view that your actions, by putting patients at risk of harm, did fall seriously short of the conduct and standards expected of a nurse and amounted to misconduct.”

They also viewed there was a risk of repetition based on his current lack of remediation and his fitness to practice was impaired.

A conditions of practice order for three years has been made against him.

The sanction will be made known to any future employer.

Leonard Cheshire Disability is a charity supporting people with illnesses including Cerebral Palsy and brain injuries.

A spokesperson said: “Leonard Cheshire Disability always aims to provide the best possible support to the people who live at Oaklands.

“Their safety and well-being is our absolute priority.

“As soon as we learned of the allegation we launched an investigation. The individual involved was suspended during the investigation and then left the organisation following its conclusion.”