Update on future of Blackpool Victoria Hospital nurse who locked colleague in room and tried to kiss her

A nurse at Blackpool Victoria Hospital who locked a female colleague in a room after using the guise of training to meet her alone so he could attempt to kiss her is free to work in the medical industry again after a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) review of his six-month suspension order.

An NMC panel in March of this year heard that nurse Andrew Paul Henson propositioned colleagues, made sexual innuendos, and made their workplace uncomfortable, ruling that the Band 7 nurse’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct.

The charges dated between 2018 and 2021 involved two female colleagues during the Covid-19 pandemic, with the panel saying Mr Henson’s actions were unprofessional and a breach of professional boundaries. They added that his actions also violated both women’s dignity as well as making their work environment intimidating, hostile, degrading and humiliating.

On one occasion he was said to have engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a colleague by placing an unwanted hand on a female colleague’s knee. The NMC concluded his fitness to practise was impaired due to misconduct and banned him from working for six months.

On Thursday, 17 September 2026, a Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee conducted a substantive order review hearing into Mr Henson’s suspension, ruling that his suspension order was to lapse upon expiry in accordance with Article 30 (1) on 13 October 2026.

With the NMC also ruling that Mr Henson’s fitness to practise was not impaired, he is now free to work in the medical industry again.

‘Flirtatious’

Following an internal investigation by Blackpool Teaching Hospitals Trust, the matter was referred to the NMC on 11 January 2022. The charges relate to Mr Henson’s time working at Blackpool Victoria Hospital. The final part of the hearing held between March 9 and March 11 was told “there was a workplace culture involving banter and dark humour”.

On one occasion he asked a colleague to meet him after hours for ‘mandatory training’ and it was proven he tried to kiss her while they were alone. The NMC said: “The panel noted your evidence that the primary motive for you inviting Colleague A to meet you was to discuss mandatory training.

“The panel accepted that in your message to Colleague A you had expressly given this as the reason. However, the panel did not find that this was your primary motive. Rather, the panel found that this was an excuse to invite Colleague A into a private space at a time and place where you knew the two of you would be alone.

“It noted that the meeting was arranged outside of your normal working hours, at a time when the other staff who usually used the office were absent. The panel carefully considered why the invitation was sent with a winking face emoji and acknowledged your explanation that this was simply playful.

“However, the panel was satisfied that it was flirtatious and indicative of the fact that mandatory training was a pretext for inviting Colleague A to the office.”

The NMC added: “She (Ms Mukhia, the newly appointed case presenter on behalf of the NMC) submitted that your conduct towards Colleague A, including attempting to kiss her, was sexually motivated and unwelcome. Colleague A was a young and relatively junior nurse, and you took advantage of this imbalance of power.”

‘Well-developed understanding of why your conduct was wrong’

In the suspension review hearing, the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee considered whether Mr Henson’s fitness to practise remained impaired, saying: “The panel noted that the original panel found that you had developing insight.

“At this hearing, the panel considered that you had demonstrated a well-developed understanding of why your conduct was wrong and how it had impacted negatively on your colleagues, patients and the reputation of the nursing profession.

“In particular, the panel noted your acknowledgement that your conduct had brought the profession into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets of the profession. Notwithstanding the reservations Mr Edwards expressed as to your reflective piece

“The panel considered that your reflective piece demonstrated a clear understanding of professional boundaries, including the need to be conscious of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate humour and interactions in the workplace.

“The panel also noted your recognition of the imbalance of power in relation to Colleague A and Colleague D and your reflection on the impact of your conduct on colleagues and the potential risk to patients.

“The panel considered that your reflections demonstrated that you had thought carefully about your conduct, understood where you had gone wrong and had taken accountability for your actions.

“In its consideration of whether you had taken steps to strengthen your practice, the panel took into account your reflective piece, the relevant and targeted training you had undertaken. The panel also took into account that you were also very clear as to how you would behave going forward using a structured framework to support your thinking and uphold standards of the profession.”

‘No evidence of deep-seated attitudinal concerns’

“The panel considered your reflections to be robust and meaningful and found that your insight had developed significantly since the previous hearing. It also took account of the openness and honesty you demonstrated in your reflective piece.

“The panel found no evidence of deep-seated attitudinal concerns and was satisfied that you had developed the level of insight it would expect to see. The panel also had regard to the principles in Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) when considering whether the concerns identified had been remedied.

“It noted the mitigating factors identified by the previous panel and considered that you had further strengthened your position during the approximately five months since the suspension order was imposed through continued reflection, the development of insight and remediation. The panel was satisfied that your misconduct was remediable and had now been remedied.

“The previous panel determined that the risk of repetition was low and that the public protection limb of impairment was not engaged. At this hearing, the panel received further evidence of your developed insight, reflection and remediation, together with your information of relevant and targeted training. There was no evidence of any repetition of the conduct.

“In light of this, the panel determined that you were not liable to repeat matters of the kind found proved. It was satisfied that you were unlikely in the future to breach fundamental tenets of the profession or bring the profession into disrepute in the manner previously identified.

“The panel has borne in mind that its primary function is to protect patients and the wider public interest which includes maintaining confidence in the nursing profession and upholding proper standards of conduct and performance. The panel determined that, in this case, a finding of continuing impairment on public interest grounds is not required.

“For these reasons, the panel finds that, although your fitness to practise was impaired at the time of the incidents, given all of the above, your fitness to practise is not currently impaired. In accordance with Article 30(1), the substantive suspension order will lapse upon expiry, namely the end of 13 October 2026.”