Scots carer struck off after calling service users “f***ing mongos”

A DISGRACED Scots carer has been struck off following a slew of foul-mouthed comments, including one instance that saw her call service users “f***ing mongos”.

Hollie McIntyre Hume was employed as a relief support worker at Quarrier Village Supported Living Service in Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire when the outbursts occurred between August and December 2021.

Hollie McIntyre Hume was employed as a relief support worker at Quarrier Village Supported Living Service in Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire.

The carer was found to have asked one unnamed service user, “will you f***ing shut up” and taking another user’s tablet away from him for a prolonged period of time.

Hume further uttered, whilst with both aforementioned users present, “f***ing mongos” and using the latter word on another separate occasion whilst employed at the above workplace.

Hume also isolated a resident from other staff by shutting a living room door to drown out noise that the service user was making.

This led to a referral to Scottish care watchdog, the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), who held a fitness to practise hearing across seven separate dates from June to October this year.

The SSSC found the carer guilty, citing a variety of reasons behind their decision, including doubts over Hume’s behaviour being remediable, strong witnesses to her actions and a “real lack of insight, regret or apology”.

The panel also rejected the warning or conditions sanction recommended by the disgraced carer’s solicitor, Ashleigh Kaney, in favour of a removal order.

The SSSC’s full report reads: “In reaching its decision the panel took into account its findings of fact, its decision on impairment, the evidence previously presented, all papers in the bundle, the submissions from the presenter, and the written submissions from your representative.

“The panel kept in mind its previous deliberations in respect of mitigating and aggravating factors as provided for in section 8 of the Decisions Guidance.

“It had concluded that your behaviour was serious, with a number of aggravating factors, some of these significant.

“The panel were particularly concerned about the lack of any real insight into the seriousness and effects of your actions.

“There was little or nothing to satisfy it that there was any prospect of matters being remediated, and nothing to suggest that you had taken any steps towards remediation of, or reflection on, your attitudes and behaviours.

“A warning alone was not appropriate. This was not a case at the lowest end of the scale. The Panel did not consider that conditions would address matters adequately.

“A suspension was not appropriate. There was nothing to suggest to the panel that your behaviour and attitudes would be remedied by a period of removal from practice.

“The panel therefore came to the conclusion that the appropriate sanction was a removal order. It agreed that this was appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

“It noted that there had been serious misconduct on your part. There had been a significant abuse of trust.

“There appeared to be a significant and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of your actions and their consequences.

“There was a serious departure from the relevant professional standards set out in the codes.

“There was a pattern of repeated unacceptable behaviour. There was no evidence that there was likely to be any remediation.

“The panel agreed that removal was an appropriate and proportionate outcome and they therefore decided to make a removal order, removing your name from the register.”