‘Poor judgement and a lack of insight’: Ex-nurse fights publication of name after Roy Fagan patient assault

A former Roy Fagan nurse convicted of common assault, by holding on to a patient and forcing medication into her mouth, will soon appear in a professional misconduct tribunal hearing.

The site of the Roy Fagan Centre at 54 Kalang Avenue, Lenah Valley. Picture: Google Images

A Roy Fagan nurse convicted of common assault, by holding on to a patient and forcing medication into her mouth, has failed in his bid to have his name suppressed in an upcoming tribunal hearing.

The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is yet to hear a professional misconduct case waged by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia against former registered nurse Mark David Thomas, 61.

The case relates to Mr Thomas’ alleged conduct at Roy Fagan - Hobart’s publicly-owned facility for elderly people with dementia and mental illness.

In a newly-published decision, tribunal senior member Lucinda Jack said Mr Thomas was convicted of common assault in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania.

In an application to suppress his name, and keep his identity out of the media, Mr Thomas’ lawyers told the tribunal he “accepts his interaction with the patient in question was misguided” and that he showed “poor judgement and a lack of insight in a stressful situation when he was placed in a new and unfamiliar setting”.

However, Mr Thomas asked for his name to be suppressed, arguing he was no longer a nurse and had withdrawn from his career of 38 years

He said Tasmania was a small state with publication of his case likely in local newspapers, which would upset his elderly parents.

The site of the Roy Fagan Centre. Picture: Google Images

It is understood the patient in question passed away from unrelated causes, but Mr Thomas argued the publication of his name could unnecessarily traumatise and distress the patient’s family members.

The Nursing and Midwifery Board opposed Mr Thomas’ application, arguing there was no evidence that prohibiting his name was in the interests of justice.

The board argued disciplinary proceedings should instead be open, given that personal and general deterrence was relevant.

The board said it was “merely speculation” that the patient’s family would be distressed by the publication of his name - and argued he was simply making the application to avoid personal embarrassment.

The tribunal was not swayed by Mr Thomas’ arguments.

However, it prohibited the publication of any information that would identify the patient in question.

Follow @ambervwilson