Home   News   Article

Support worker with Inverness care service removed from Scottish Social Services Council’s (SSSC) register after investigation found she engaged in aggressive behaviour towards vulnerable resident


By Val Sweeney

Easier access to your trusted, local news. Subscribe to a digital package and support local news publishing.



Click here to sign up to our free newsletters!
An Inverness support worker has been removed from the Scottish Social Services Council’s (SSSC) register following an investigation.
An Inverness support worker has been removed from the Scottish Social Services Council’s (SSSC) register following an investigation.

A support worker with an Inverness care service has been removed from the Scottish Social Services Council’s (SSSC) register.

Following an investigation, Sheila McLuskie was found to have engaged in aggressive behaviour towards a vulnerable resident and also that she failed to intervene to diffuse a situation when she witnessed one resident treat another aggressively.

The SSSC found her fitness to practice was impaired because of misconduct and removed her from its register of support workers in a care home service for adults, support workers in care at home service and support workers in a housing support service.

The report detailed four allegations from July 2020 while she was employed as a support worker by a care service in Cromarty.

It stated she had observed resident BB shouting threats towards vulnerable resident AA who was showing signs of distress. The identity of the residents has been protected.

“The threats were violent in nature and if acted upon, would have placed AA at risk of physical harm,” the report stated.

“As such, you witnessed one resident treat another aggressively and failed to intervene to diffuse the situation, remove the aggravator or comfort AA.

“Users of services, their family and your employer are entitled to place their trust in you to act in the best interests of those you care for.

“By observing heightened behaviour targeted towards AA and failing to intervene you breached the trust placed in you by users of social services, their family, and your employer.”

The SSSC report also said Ms McLuskie had engaged in aggressive behaviour towards a vulnerable resident on two occasions.

It stated: “Firstly, when resident AA was displaying heightened behaviour, you pointed in AA’s face and shouted ‘shut up, I wish you were six feet under, shut up’ or words to that effect.

“To treat a resident in such a manner is unprofessional, confrontational, disrespectful and could place them at risk of emotional harm.”

The SSSC maintained her behaviour showed a lack of understanding of AA’s vulnerabilities and how they were displayed in their behaviour.

The report continued: “You said on two occasions that AA should grow up. You told AA again to stop being so cheeky. You told AA that you can’t be nice to her because she is so horrible.

“You showed continuous frustration towards AA, who you have a duty of care towards.”

The SSSC said Ms McLuskie’s behaviour was insensitive and uncaring.

“Your actions raise significant concerns regarding your underlying values and attitude,” the report stated.

“You have demonstrated a disregard and contempt for the rights and dignity of a resident in your care.

“Although you have shown some reflection, you have also attempted to minimise some aspects of your behaviour which signifies you have not accepted full responsibility for your actions.

“As such, there remains a risk of repetition.

“Action requires to be taken to protect the welfare and wellbeing of residents and to mark the seriousness of the behaviour.

“The behaviour violates fundamental tenets of the profession as you wilfully participated in behaviour that ridiculed a resident that you were obligated to support and assist.

“Failure to take appropriate action would undermine the public’s confidence and trust in the social services profession and jeopardise the integrity of the register.”

In Ms McLuskie’s favour, the SSSC noted she had shown some insight and reflection relevant to some of her behaviour

She had no previous history with SSSC and had demonstrated a sustained period of prolonged good practice prior to these matters and had cooperated fully with the SSSC investigation.


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More