A council-employed home carer has been struck off after refusing to help in the personal care of a vulnerable service user.
Derek Hillan told a colleague he “hated” the service user, known only as ‘AA,’ and said they were a “p***k.”
Details of Hillan’s vile behaviour, which unfolded earlier this year, were outlined by the industry regulator, The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC).
The regulator said his fitness to practise was “impaired” because of “misconduct.”
In their findings of fact, the SSSC said that, while employed as a home carer by South Ayrshire Council and during the course of that employment, Hillan “refused” to help clean the service user’s groin and told a colleague: “Gads, I am not touching down there”, or words to that effect.
Hillan’s town of employment was Ayr, according to the report.
On a separate occasion, again, when a colleague asked for assistance to clean the groin area, Hillan said: “Gads, I am not touching down there”, or words to that effect.
And on another occasion, prior to entering AA’s house, Hillan told a colleague that he “hated” the service user, he used his personal mobile phone- when he was supposed to be assisting with AA’s support- then labelled the man a “p***k,” or words to that effect.
Hillan was also found to have sat on the service user’s wife’s bed during one visit.
When ‘AA’ asked him if he had started his holiday early, he replied: “What because I’m sitting down, I told you I’m knackered”, or words to that effect.
The SSSC also found that Hillan had “forcefully” pulled AA’s slide sheet in an attempt to remove it from underneath him, resulting in him bumping into the bedroom light and “falling over.”
And on a date on or around March 2024 and on or around 31 May 2024, while supporting AA, Hillan complained about not finishing work until a certain time of night and of “being tired” in front of AA. Hillan also emptied AA’s night bag – but left urine on the floor.
In their notice of decision, the SSSC said Hillan’s behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible” with continuing registration.
An extract from their report said: “Social service workers must communicate in an appropriate manner and treat supported people with dignity and respect. On two separate occasions, after your colleague asked you to assist her with carrying out personal care to AA’s groin, you (Hillan) made a disrespectful comment while in the presence of AA and then refused to assist your colleague in carrying out the personal care.
“Your actions had the potential to cause embarrassment and distress to AA. You also told your colleague that you hated AA, which raises concerns in relation to your ability to maintain professionalism during the course of your employment.
“Had AA been aware of such a comment being made, it is likely he would have suffered emotional harm as a result.”
The report continues: “After entering AA’s home to provide support, you sat on AA’s wife’s bed and used your personal mobile phone to organise a night out after work. Your behaviour was unprofessional and inappropriate, given you were there to support AA with his care needs. After AA attempted to joke with you about this, you swore at AA and left the room. Your behaviour is verbally abusive in nature and raises concerns about your ability to maintain self-control in situations where you may feel you are being challenged. Your behaviour had the potential to place AA at risk of emotional harm.”
It was revealed that Hillan had been employed in the social services sector for four years, prior to these incidents.
However, the SSSC said he demonstrated “no insight” into his behaviour and offered “no assurances” that similar behaviour would not be repeated.
The SSSC added: “The behaviour displayed falls far short of the standards expected of social services workers and is serious. The nature of your behaviour, coupled with your lack of insight and the values issues associated with the behaviour, is such that you continue to pose a risk of harm to vulnerable individuals should you be permitted to continue working in the sector.”
They added: “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.”
South Ayrshire Council’s Health and Social Care Partnership has been contacted for a response.