Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC strikes off London nurse Eliot Aluge over sexual misconduct with vulnerable patient
The Nursing and Midwifery Council has struck mental health nurse Eliot Aluge off the register after a panel found he pursued a sexual relationship with a vulnerable inpatient in his care and asked her for money.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 24 June 2026 · Updated 9 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 9 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Eliot Aluge, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 22H0597E).
Decision date: 24 June 2026 · Hearing started 25 September 2025 and ended 24 June 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Eliot Aluge, a mental health nurse in London, pursued a sexual relationship with a vulnerable inpatient detained under the Mental Health Act, exposed himself to her on the ward, asked her for money and repeatedly contacted her without clinical justification. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired and struck him off the register, with an 18-month interim suspension order.
Charges
That you, a registered nurse: having entered into a sexual relationship with Patient A failed to disclose the relationship to your manager and/or employer; whilst Patient A was an inpatient, took her to a nearby park and kissed and touched her under her clothes, and entered her room on the ward and exposed yourself to her, asking her to perform oral sex; asked Patient A for money; undertook observations on Patient A, including while she was taking a bath, that should have been undertaken by a female member of staff; obtained her telephone number, arranged to meet her and rang her on multiple occasions without clinical justification; your conduct breached professional boundaries and was sexually motivated. Further charges alleging dishonesty towards an agency (charges 10-15) were found to have no case to answer.
Findings
The panel found charges 1 to 9 proved (several by admission), except charge 9 in relation to charge 3; charges 10 to 15 fell away after the panel refused to admit hearsay evidence and found no case to answer. It found Patient A, admitted under the Mental Health Act, was a highly vulnerable patient who suffered emotional and psychological harm, and that the conduct amounted to serious misconduct. Fitness to practise was found impaired on public protection and public interest grounds, with a real risk of repetition given insufficient insight. A striking-off order was imposed, with an 18-month interim suspension order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Early admission of some of the facts; apologies to those affected; relevant training courses undertaken, albeit there is no evidence that this has been put into effect; engagement with the fitness to practise process.
Aggravating factors
The charges found proved include sexual misconduct with a patient; abuse of a position of trust; Patient A suffered emotional and psychological harm; a pattern of misconduct over several months; limited insight, given the length of time to consider his actions; an exceptionally vulnerable person receiving mental health care; predatory behaviour evidenced by repeatedly pursuing Patient A; personal gain; and untruthful evidence given under affirmation at the fact-finding stage.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.