Charge

A panel of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal convened at [Location] on the 15^th of September 2025 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand against [Ms N] (the practitioner).

In summary the charge alleged:

That the practitioner was guilty of professional misconduct on the 27^th of June 2022 in that it was alleged that she had failed to assess a resident in a rest home when requested to by caregivers.

The full charge is laid out in Schedule A of the published decision.

Background

The practitioner was first registered in [Country] but subsequently gained registration in New Zealand where she was employed in a rest home as a registered nurse for 10 years prior to the conduct of the charge occurring.

On the 27^th of June 2022, a resident was found to be in pain, and two health care assistants requested the practitioner who instructed the use of a hoist to assist the resident with toileting. Subsequently a staff member rang the Manager of the rest home and requested assistance. It was agreed that the Manager would make a call to the rest home’s doctor who would attend under the ruse of checking on a palliative care patient. On arriving at the rest home, the doctor identified that the resident likely had a [health issue] and he was admitted to hospital.

Findings

The charge was not found to have been proved; the following factors were material to the Tribunal in reaching this decision.

1. Three of those involved in the events of 27^th June 2022 spoke English as a second language- the practitioner’s first language was Malayalam, [Mr I’s] first language was French and he required an interpreter to enable him to give evidence and finally [Ms G] who did not give evidence but whose Incident Form was sought to be relied on was Sinhalese.

2. The contemporaneous written records did not support the narrative given at hearing or seemed to become more strident with passage of time.

3. The CCTV footage relied on was admitted to being incomplete, was silent and showed acknowledged incorrect timings.

4. The practitioner, despite having been at the rest home for 10 years, had a reputation of caring for the residents.

Ultimately the Tribunal was left with a question as to why on this occasion would the practitioner have declined to go to the aid of a resident if in fact, she had heard the message that he was in extreme pain as opposed to needing to go to the toilet.

The Tribunal considers that this case makes plain the risk of a message believed to have been sent but ultimately not received by the practitioner, particularly in circumstances where those involved do not necessarily share the same level of competence in English.

Of concern to the Tribunal was the fact that the resident was left in pain while the subterfuge of the doctor calling to check on a palliative care patient played out. Frankly the Tribunal expects that professionalism requires a commitment to the care of the patient first and foremost. Such would have met if the Team Leader present had made the request to the practitioner or indeed had the Manager done so, noting that the Manager was on sick leave due to a Covid infection.

Outcome

1. Charge dismissed
2. Various suppression orders