An Irvine care worker has been struck off the register for breaching a client's privacy, causing emotional harm and dishonesty.

After a hearing, the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC)  ruled that Christopher Jenkins' fitness to practice was impaired and ordered his removal from their register.

They found he had failed to carry out various lunch visits to a client known as 'AA'  over a three month period and concealed this failure from his employer by falsifying records and claiming payments for the visits.

Jenkins worked for CSN Care Group, whose Carewatch service was based in Irvine's Elliot House until they pulled out of Ayrshire earlier this year.

In a ruling issued this week, they said they also found evidence thart Jenkins had: 

- Discussed 'AA' with a third party.

- Told AA: "Right, come on, I have not got all day to wait on you, I am busy so you need to hurry."

And they found that while AA was naked and waiting to get in the shower, he stated: "I'm fed up with this, I will never be back again."

Their report, issued on September 2, stated: "You breached AA’s privacy by discussing him with a third party who was not an employee of CSN Care Group Ltd.

"You received information about AA which appears to have negatively affected your attitude towards him and resulted in you communicating with him in the unacceptable manner described above.

"This caused AA to feel upset and uncomfortable in his own home, and had an adverse effect on his relationships with other carers for a period thereafter.".

They added: "You failed to carry out various lunch visits to AA over a three-month period, concealed this failure from your employer by falsifying records to make it look as if you had attended the visits and claimed payment for the visits.

"The visits were to last 15 minutes only and no harm occurred to AA. Nonetheless, this behaviour is completely incompatible with the standards expected of social care workers."

The SSSC said: "The behaviour involves repeated instances of dishonesty which is very serious and raises significant concerns about your values.

"You cooperated with your employer’s investigation and acknowledged the behaviour was wrong and offered an apology.

"However, you have not engaged with the SSSC investigation and, given the seriousness of the behaviour, the information you provided to your employer and degree of insight shown is not sufficient to allay our concerns."

And in their ruling they concluded: "The behaviour occurred at work and was sufficiently serious to damage the reputation of the profession.

"There was a pattern of behaviour over a three-month period.

"You caused emotional harm to a service user and financial harm to your employer.

"You have failed to cooperate with the SSSC investigation.

"You attempted to conceal your failure to carry out the visits."

They concluded: "The SSSC considers a removal order is the most appropriate sanction as it is both necessary and justified in the public interest and to maintain the continuing trust and confidence in the social service profession and the SSSC as the regulator of the profession."