Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC strikes off nurse Kenneth Macadaeg over sexually motivated touching of a patient

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck nurse Kenneth Macadaeg off the register after finding he touched a post-operative patient's penis without clinical justification and made sexual comments, concluding the conduct was sexually motivated.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 30 July 2026 · Updated 18 August 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 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 Kenneth Macadaeg, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 23K1962O).

Decision date: 30 July 2026 · Hearing started 21 July 2026 and ended 30 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that nurse Kenneth Macadaeg touched Patient A's penis without clinical justification on more than one occasion during a night shift in February 2024, and told him he had 'a very strong erection'. The panel found both actions were sexually motivated. It found three further charges not proved, including allegations involving a second patient. The panel decided his fitness to practise was impaired, struck him off the register and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

That he, a registered nurse: 1. between 15 and 16 February 2024 on one or more occasions touched Patient A's penis without clinical justification (proved); 2. on 16 February 2024 said to Patient A (a) 'you have a very strong erection' or words to that effect and (b) 'this is a very strong erection' or words to that effect (both proved); 3. that his conduct in charge 1 was sexually motivated (proved); 4. that his conduct in charge 2 was sexually motivated (proved); 5. that on or about September 2023 he touched Patient B's penis without clinical justification (not proved); 6. that his conduct in charge 5 was sexually motivated (not proved); and 7. that on 10 May 2025, while his registration was subject to an interim conditions of practice order, he breached that order by providing intimate care to a patient without a chaperone present (not proved). And in light of the above, that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct.

Findings

The panel found charges 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3 and 4 proved and charges 5, 6 and 7 not proved. On charge 5 it held that the NMC had not provided sufficient evidence that Mr Macadaeg was the person who cared for Patient B in September 2023, noting the absence of rosters or patient notes and that Patient B was 'woozy' from anaesthetic and identified him some four months later; charge 6 fell away. On charge 7 it found the evidence did not establish that he had provided intimate care within the meaning of the condition. The panel did not find credible his account that he was washing dirt from Patient A's thigh or massaging his legs to raise blood pressure, preferred Patient A's consistent account, and found no clinical justification and no plausible non-sexual explanation for the touching or the comments. It found the facts proved amounted to misconduct, breaching Code standards 1.1, 5.1, 20.1, 20.5 and 20.6, and that consent had been given under a false pretence. Finding limbs (a), (b) and (c) of the Grant test engaged, no insight and no remediation, the panel found his fitness to practise impaired on public protection and public interest grounds, directed that he be struck off the register, and imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover any appeal.

Mitigating factors

The panel determined that there were no mitigating factors. It noted that he had given evidence of personal circumstances heard in private, but that personal mitigation is usually less relevant because the purpose of sanctions is to protect the public. It also noted that he had fully engaged with the hearing and had no previous NMC referrals.

Aggravating factors

An abuse of a position of trust involving a vulnerable patient; the sexual misconduct of touching Patient A's penis was repeated twice or three times and two inappropriate comments were made; 'cleaning' Patient A's penis over a sustained period of time amounted to a sexual assault; conduct which caused Patient A, who was receiving care from him, to suffer psychological harm, the panel accepting his evidence that he was worried about his safety, had sleepless nights, was locking his doors and had flashbacks which affected his sexual relationship; predatory behaviour in taking advantage of a vulnerable patient receiving care post-surgery; seeking and obtaining 'consent' from Patient A to handle his penis deceitfully by stating that he was merely providing clinical care when he was not; and the lack of any insight and remediation.

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.