A NURSE who lied on patient’s records and who was "repeatedly dishonest" during her time working at an East Lancashire hospital has been struck-off from the profession.

Joanna Louise Gaskarth-Parkhouse became the subject of an investigation after her colleagues at the Royal Blackburn Hospital noticed a series of issues with her work during a night shift on June 24, 2019.  

An investigation into her conduct found on more than one occasion between June 24 and 25, Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse claimed she had administered drugs such as antibiotics to patients on her ward, when in reality she hadn’t - and then subsequently falsified documents to make it look like she had done.

Outlining one of the incidents the Nursing and Midwifery Council report stated: “The panel found that Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse did not administer Flucloxacillin, although she stated she had.

“It therefore logically followed that Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse had signed the MAR chart to indicate she had administered Flucloxacillin when she had not done so.”

A further proven charge outlined a similar incident while another described how the nurse had "recorded blood glucose readings" for a patient when she had never actually carried out the procedure.

The report continued: “The panel took account of the evidence from the witnesses that Patient A, B and C did not have their own personal glucometers and therefore were unable to provide any personal readings.

“After taking this evidence into account the panel concluded it was more likely than not the registrant had recorded blood glucose readings for Patient A when she had not taken any.”

Having reached its determination on the facts of this case, the panel then moved on to consider whether the facts amounted to misconduct and, if so, whether Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

For the NMC, Sapandeep Maini-Thompson submitted that by reason of her conduct, Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse’s fitness to practice was impaired.

They argued her conduct was dishonest and placed vulnerable patients at risk of harm. It would place others at risk of harm if repeated, they added.

They also stated in their view, as a registered nurse, she was currently a risk to the health, safety or wellbeing of the public.

Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse, who was employed by an agency to work at the hospital, did not attend the virtual hearing and was unrepresented.

Ultimately, the panel found some of the nurse’s actions were dishonest and fell well short of the standards expected of a registered nurse, amounting to misconduct.

The panel next went on to decide if as a result of the misconduct, Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

The report states: “Nurses occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to be professional.

"Patients and their families must be able to trust nurses with their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

"They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients’ and the public’s trust in the profession.”

It went on: “The panel was of the view Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse put patients at an unwarranted risk of harm as a result of her actions.

"In particular, the panel took note of the evidence of Witness one who stated ‘it is serious if the Registrant falsified the records, predominantly because it would put the safety of the patients concerned at risk. This action would also breach the Registrant’s duty to be honest regarding errors and also demonstrate a lack of integrity'.”

In addition, the panel concluded Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse’s failure to carry out adequate patient care when administering medication and carrying out tests, breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and therefore brought its reputation into disrepute.

The report goes on to explain how in reaching their decision to strike the nurse off, the panel had considered a number of aggravating features in Ms Gaskarth-Parkhouse’s case, including the fact she had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions or the potential implications they may have had on the health of some patients.

They also concluded that she had shown a lack of insight, empathy or remorse for her behaviour.

The report concludes: “The panel has considered this case very carefully and has decided to make a striking-off order. It directs the registrar to strike Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse off the register.”

As a striking off order cannot take effect until the end of the 28-day appeal period, the panel made the decision to place an interim suspension order on Mrs Gaskarth-Parkhouse, meaning she cannot work as a nurse in the meantime.

The East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust declined to comment on the case.