Nurse squeezed affected person’s penis and used ‘acid-like’ substance whereas pulling face
Andrew Jonathan Davies humiliated the critically ill patient, who was unable to speak and could only communicate through eye movements whilst in intensice care at Prince Charles Hospital
A nurse has been removed from the professional register after squeezing an intensive care patient’s penis and cleaning it with a substance that felt like “acid” at a Welsh hospital.
A professional standards tribunal heard how Andrew Jonathan Davies humiliated the critically ill patient, who was unable to speak and could only communicate through eye movements whilst under his care in the ICU at Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil.
The patient under Davies’ supervision was “crying out in pain” at times, with the individual stating that Davies caused harm to his head and neck during every shift, the Nursing and Midwifery Council committee was told.
All nine charges against Davies relating to the patient were upheld by a Nursing and Midwifery Council Panel, according to WalesOnline.
The nurse, who had four decades of experience, qualified as an adult care nurse in 1986 and as an orthopaedic nurse in 1988, and has now been struck off in both categories.
Davies, who frequently worked at Prince Charles Hospital’s ICU through Richmond Nursing Agency Ltd between 2020 and 2021, refuted all accusations, but the panel—which also heard testimony from the patient, his wife, and hospital staff—found all charges proven and constituting serious professional misconduct.
The particulars and outcome of the hearing, which commenced earlier this year before being postponed and resuming from November 10-20, have now been published online by the NMC. The patient, known as Patient A to safeguard his identity, was rushed to Prince Charles Hospital’s intensive care unit in April 2021 suffering from abdominal pain, suspected sepsis and peri-arrest.
Medical staff later determined he had Guillain-Barre syndrome, an auto-immune condition that can cause weakness and paralysis. The GBS left Patient A completely paralysed, requiring ventilation and sedation.
Unable to shut his eyes or move any part of his body, he remained in ITU for 143 days before being transferred to another ward, with sedation withdrawn on May 5, 2021. Davies provided care during this vulnerable period when Patient A was conscious, spanning from May 5 to June 27, 2021.
Throughout this time, Patient A alleged that Davies left him “crying out in pain” when manipulating his legs, cleansed his penis with a substance that burned like “acid” and tore electrodes from his chest – allegations that were all substantiated.
“On a number of occasions (I cannot recall the specific dates but it was every time Mr Davies was my allocated nurse), Mr Davies would squeeze my penis, pull back my foreskin and look at me and pull a face which indicated to me that he knew what he was doing to me was painful and say ‘oooh it’s got to be done’,” the patient testified.
The panel confirmed that Davies had, on one or more occasions, used a product other than soap and water and/or sterile cleansing pack to clean Patient A’s penis without clinical justification.
Furthermore, it was established that Davies had instructed the patient to sit in a chair and told him not to “f****** roll your eyes at me,” despite this being the patient’s only means of communication.
Patient A shared with the committee: “The only way I could try and communicate the pain I was in was through my eyes or by nodding my head side to side and when I did this, Mr Davies would come up to the side of my head and say ‘don’t f****** roll your eyes at me’,”.
He also recounted an incident where, while outside with Davies, another nurse, his wife and daughter, Davies had insulted him, saying: “You look like a right p**** in the sunglasses.”
The panel found these allegations to be true as well.
According to the man, Davies caused him pain every time he was on duty. He told the committee: “On every shift that Mr Davies was my allocated nurse, he would push my head and neck too far when repositioning me and it really hurt.
“I tried to make him aware that I was in pain by moving my head from side to side and straining my eyes and he saw me doing this, however, he still carried on doing [sic] pushing my head and neck too far, causing me pain on every shift.”
A witness testified to the panel that they heard Davies instructing Patient A during rehabilitation: “I told you, you have to sit in the chair, you have to do it” – a claim which was substantiated.
The online report of the hearing detailed: “Patient A alleges that, on a number of occasions, you were rough in your handling of him and that on occasions you would physically move him without informing him or seeking consent.
“Patient A told Person B (his wife) that you had pulled his foreskin back resulting in pain. He stated that you had squeezed his penis and put a solution on his penis which burned him. Patient A was unable to detail the dates of these occurrences.”
An investigation was initiated in July 2021 after the patient’s wife brought his allegations to the attention of senior staff. A meeting with the agency took place on 20 July, during which Davies denied the allegations.
A week later, on 27 July 2021, he was dismissed by the agency.
The NMC hearing noted that Davies claimed the allegations were false, suggesting Patient A “has associated false memories given his type of illness and the time period he was in ITU” and held a grudge because he’d refused him a drink of squash due to the potential risk of aspiration and infection. The panel dismissed these claims.
Speaking for the NMC, Giedrius Kabasinskas argued that Davies’ behaviour was designed to intimidate, humiliate and instil fear in Patient A, whilst also inflicting physical and psychological damage, with the nurse displaying minimal understanding of his conduct, which he continues to refute.
The panel determined that Patient A was placed in danger and suffered both physical and emotional trauma due to Davies’ professional misconduct.
In removing the nurse from the register, the panel stated: “Whilst you maintain that none of this ever happened, you have not addressed what you could do differently in the future to ensure that patients do not feel threatened by you, or fully acknowledged the impact that your actions have had on Patient A.”
They continued: “The panel also bore in mind that you have not provided the panel with an updated reflective statement.”
A representative for Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board commented: “The safety and dignity of our patients is of paramount importance.”
They confirmed: “We can confirm that a professional issue involving an agency nurse was raised back in 2021. As soon as the Health Board was made aware of the allegations, the individual was immediately stopped from working, and all appropriate professional, safeguarding, and regulatory escalation processes were followed.”
