GSCC case: Practitioner accused of inappropriate relationships

By Sally Gillen on January 14, 2009 in Fitness to practise, Mental Health

A social worker facing conduct charges has admitted introducing a service user to colleagues and clients as a student social worker and forming an inappropriate relationship with another patient.

The practitioner – Mr G – who was employed as a drugs worker by the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Trust at the time, also allowed the first service user, Ms B, to sit in on appointments with clients and, on one occasion, ask one of them a question.

In a statement, which was read to the General Social Care Council hearing, Ms B said: “I was very naïve about him and the attention he gave me.”

Disclosed affair with GP

She told the committee that the practitioner had made a number of disclosures of personal information to her, including that he was having an affair with a GP.

Mr G had admitted telling Ms B about his affair but said he has no specific recollection of the conversation.

He has also admitted sending sexually explicit texts to another service user, Ms A, but denies allegations that he touched her breast and kissed her.

Prior concerns about practice

Mark Stevens, Mr G’s then line manager, told the hearing that he had had concerns about his practice before allegations involving Ms A came to light and he was asked to undertake an investigation in July 2006.

Stevens said he found Mr G to be “uncouth,” saying his notes were in disarray, and that he had witnessed him discussing cases in the presence of service users, swearing in front of them and displaying a lack of empathy.

Stevens was in the process of moving him into a post where he would not be allowed to work unsupervised when he was asked to carry out an investigation into allegations against the social worker.

Charges denied

Stevens told the hearing he had interviewed Mr G as part of his investigation and the practitioner described Ms A’s allegations as “fictitious”.

He went on to say he also interviewed Ms B and was struck by similarities in the accounts they gave of their relationship with Mr G, including disclosures of personal information.

Giving evidence later, another former colleague of Mr G’s, Dr Gail Critchlow, said she believed he had sometimes “over-worried” about patients. She added that his manner had always been informal but she had never witnessed any conduct she believed breached boundaries and had no concerns that his behaviour was inappropriate.

The hearing continues.