Charge Detail Summary

Return
File Number: Nur22/541P
Practitioner: Ms S
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Sexual misconduct - inappropriate relationship (Established)


Misled
(Established)


Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Order for interim name suppression for the practitioner and suppression of any identifying details

Order for permanent name suppression for the practitioner and suppression of any identifying details

1227Nur22541P.pdfNur22541P.pdf


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Order for interim name suppression for the patient named in the charge and suppression of any identifying details

Order for permanent name suppression for the patient named in the charge and suppression of any identifying details

1227Nur22541P.pdfNur22541P.pdf


Name Suppression to Witness/s and/or Family of parties

Order for interim name suppression for the mother of the patient the subject of the charge

Order for permanent name suppression for the mother of the patient the subject of the charge

1227Nur22541P.pdfNur22541P.pdf


Name Suppression to Witness/s and/or Family of parties

Order for permanent suppression of the names of the practitioner's family members

Nur22541P.pdf


Appeal Order:


Decision:

Full Decision Nur22541P.pdf


Appeal Decision:

Penalty Decision
Outcome

The PCC has appealed to the High Court, the order of suspension, seeking cancellation of the nurse's registration.



Precis of Decision:

A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened 19, 20 and 21 September 2022 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand against [Ms S] (the Nurse).

Charge:

The charge alleged that from about February 2017 onwards, while employed as an enrolled nurse by a District Health Board and thereafter, the Nurse failed to set and/or maintain appropriate professional boundaries; and/or entered into an inappropriate relationship with and/or intentionally deceived a vulnerable mental health patient and a person to whom the Nurse was providing and/or had provided health services to whilst employed as an enrolled nurse.

A full copy of the charge is found in the Appendix to the full decision.

Background:

The Nurse began work as an Enrolled Nurse on 13 January 2015.

Mr T (the patient) had a longstanding history of schizophrenia. His disorganisation and intellectual impairment issues mean that he needs everything simplified. The patient lacks the ability to grasp difficult concepts and concentrate.

The Nurse was one of the patient’s two allocated nurses. A friendship developed between the two. The Nurse was asked to transport the patient to a Rehabilitation Unit on his discharge. On arrival, the patient requested the Nurse’s phone number, which she gave him. Their friendship later evolved into an intimate relationship, which began in June 2017.

In mid-July 2017, the Nurse discovered that she was pregnant with twins. When patient’s mother asked her if the twins were his, both the patient and the Nurse replied that they were. In November 2017 the Nurse told the patient the truth, that he was not the father of the twins.

On 17 December 2017 the Nurse and the children moved into the mother of the patient’s home where the patient was living.  In January the Nurse began looking for rental accommodation for her and the patient. The couple found a property that was within walking distance of the patient’s mother’s house. They then started to live together.

On 17 April 2018 the patient was removed from the Nurse’s home by the Police due to concerns regarding his mental health. Following this, he was readmitted to an Inpatient Mental Health Ward. Shortly afterwards, the Nurse discovered that she was again pregnant, this time to the patient.

Finding:

Nurses must maintain professional boundaries and must not take advantage of vulnerable patients.

The Tribunal found that all the particulars of the charge were made out factually. Four particulars individually and three cumulatively amounted to professional misconduct. One particular did not amount to professional misconduct. The professional misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary sanction.

Penalty:

The Tribunal ordered:

Censure

Suspension for 18 months

Five conditions on the Nurse’s return to practice

Costs of $23,259.

 

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.

 

The PCC has appealed to the High Court against the order of suspension seeking cancellation of the practitioner's registration