This site is intended for health professionals only

Residential home nurse receives five-year caution for care failures

A 50-year-old registered nurse from Herne Bay, Kent has received a five-year caution order from the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC) following a string of incidents in which he failed to ensure that a patient received the appropriate standard of care.

Takoorparsad Kanayalall Ghowry was the owner and registered manager of St Stephens Residential Home when between January 2004 and February 2004 three charges were brought against him for misconduct.

The independent Conduct and Competence Committee panel of the NMC heard that when Patient A, an elderly female resident, was at risk of developing, and subsequently did develop, pressure sores, Ghowry:

  • Failed to ensure that a risk assessment was completed in respect of Patient A's deteriorating skin condition.
  • Failed to ensure that advice in respect of patient A's deteriorating skin condition was obtained from visiting medical practitioners.
  • Failed to ensure that a pressure relief mattress was requested for Patient A.
  • Failed to ensure that appropriate medical assistance was requested from a district nurse from when the pressure area became an open wound.
  • Inappropriately allowed carers to perform nursing duties when they cleaned and dressed Patient A's open pressure areas.

In finding the five-year caution order, the panel considered that the allegations concern the registrant's failure as the owner of the home and as a registered nurse in relation to the pressure area care, nutrition, weight and comfort of patient A - a frail, elderly and confused patient. This resulted in Patient A's pressure areas breaking down, in her becoming painfully emaciated and in her having been left immobile in a room with an open window.

Commenting on the panel's decision, NMC spokesperson Sarah Connolly said: "The committee noted the registrant's acknowledgement now of how wrong it was not to supervise his staff more closely and that he stated that he used his experiences of 2004 since to the benefit of clients in his care. The committee therefore determined that the public would not be at risk and the public interest would be best served if a caution order were imposed in this case."


Was this the right decision? Your comments: (Terms and conditions apply)

"No. It was not the right decision. It was the duty of the inspector and other supervisory organisation to inspect the  care home for the proper facilities and trained staff." - Abdul Rahman, Birmingham

"Yes. He could now put measures in place to monitor staff knowing fully well that he has been cautioned." - Jim, UK