Abandoned Hillend View Care Home скачать в хорошем качестве

Abandoned Hillend View Care Home

Scots carer struck off after stealing £750 from vulnerable man A SCOTS carer has been struck off after stealing £750 from a vulnerable service user. Louise Webster was found to have withdrawn £250 from ATMs on three occasions in 2019 straight after taking out cash for the man’s cigars, sweets and juice. The care home worker knew the man’s pin and aroused suspicion amongst colleagues when the £250 withdrawals stopped while she was on holiday. The incidents took place between May and August 2019 while Webster worked at Hillend View in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire. The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) today published details stating that Webster from Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire has been removed from their register. The panel made their decision after hearing evidence from Webster’s colleagues. The first witness, known as VV, told of how she would regularly take the service user to Topshop in Caldercruix on three designated days throughout the week. However, when she turned up to take him to the shop, Webster said she had already taken him. It was revealed that all care staff had access to his care plan which was located in the nurse’s office. The manager at Hillend View, known as UU, corroborated the evidence given by her colleague that staff had cross-checked the rota with the money coming out of the user’s account. Webster was not present and did not show remorse or apologise over the incidents. The SSSC decided to issue her with a removal order following the six day hearing earlier this month. On making their decision, the SSSC said: “The only mitigating factors the panel could identify are that you have no previous record with the SSSC and worked without incident between January 2020 and July 2021. “Because of the serious nature of the allegations, the pattern of behaviour over an extended period and number of instances, your abuse of your position of trust and the potential harm caused to service users. “Your behaviour constituted premeditated and deliberate acts with no concern for the possible consequences. “It involved a significant breach of trust. You have demonstrated no insight into the possible consequences of your actions. “It represents a sustained pattern of unacceptable behaviour. There was no evidence of remediation. “There are serious public protection and public interest concerns. “The lack of safeguards coupled with what appears to be an extremely casual approach to staff going to and from the workplace to the shops has enabled you to engage in this dishonest course of conduct. “It appears, almost by chance, that the thefts were discovered as a result of [your colleagues] being sufficiently concerned to speak to management about their perceiving you were acting beyond your role to the possible detriment of AA. “In all the circumstances, it is the view of the panel that it was both fair and proportionate to impose a removal order.”