Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel suspends mental health nurse Brendan Phair over false patient observation records
A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has suspended mental health nurse Brendan Phair for four months after he admitted dishonestly asking junior colleagues to sign for patient observations that had not been carried out, and swearing at a patient. The panel found repetition highly unlikely.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 22 May 2026 · Updated 10 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 4 months
Added to MedicWatch: 10 July 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Brendan James Phair, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 19E0007C).
Decision date: 22 May 2026 · Hearing started 18 May 2026 and ended 22 May 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that mental health nurse Brendan James Phair dishonestly asked two junior colleagues to record patient observations that had not been carried out, and separately swore at a patient and pretended to throw a stapler at them. He admitted all the charges. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only and suspended him for four months, deciding no review of the order was needed.
Charges
That you, a Registered Nurse: (1) on 2 May 2022, requested that Colleague A and/or Colleague B record that they had conducted observations which they had not conducted [proved by admission]; (2) your action at charge 1 was dishonest in that you knew you were attempting to have a false record of observations created [proved by admission]; (3) on 13 May 2022, (a) said 'fuck off' or words to that effect to Patient 1 [proved by admission], and (b) pretended to throw a stapler at Patient 1 [proved by admission].
Findings
The panel found all charges proved by way of admission. It found the dishonesty in charges 1 and 2 took place in the course of professional practice, put patients at unwarranted risk of harm because observations were not being conducted, and involved pressuring junior colleagues to participate. The conduct in charge 3 was a breach of professional boundaries towards a vulnerable mental health patient. The panel was satisfied repetition is highly unlikely and found fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds only, in relation to charges 1 and 2. It imposed a suspension order for four months, determined a review of the order was not necessary, and refused the NMC's application for an interim order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Dishonesty was confined to a single day; very good insight; demonstrated genuine remorse; extensive and relevant CPD, training and reflection; worked continuously in a challenging and complex clinical environment with vulnerable clients for over three years since the incident without further concerns; evidence of a difficult working environment at the time of the incidents.
Aggravating factors
Dishonesty in the course of professional practice; dishonesty that had the potential to put patients at a risk of harm; misuse of power, in that junior colleagues were pressured to engage in dishonest conduct.
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.