Dean William Thomson

Introduction

Dean William Thomson worked as a registered Advanced Nurse Practitioner at a Homeless Healthcare Service. In July 2026, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) removed him from its register — the process the regulator calls “erasure” — after its Fitness to Practise Committee found his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. The charges he admitted covered verbal abuse towards two patients, bullying and obstructive behaviour towards colleagues, poor record keeping, and dishonestly claiming he was unaware that a patient had to be seen by two members of staff. The panel found no mitigating features and imposed a striking-off order, backed by an 18-month interim suspension to cover any appeal period.

Background Information

Thomson was registered with the NMC under PIN 92Y0059E and was employed as an Advanced Nurse Practitioner by a Homeless Healthcare Service, a setting that treats patients who frequently have complex medical needs and few alternative points of contact with the health system.

The charged conduct took place between 2021 and February 2022. The allegations ranged from directly abusive language towards patients to a sustained pattern of behaviour towards colleagues, and culminated in record-keeping failures and a dishonest account of a patient-safety rule. A single-panel substantive hearing opened on 22 July 2026 and issued its decision the same day.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated (regulatory, by admission). The findings against Thomson rest on a consensual panel determination — his own admissions, accepted by the NMC panel under its independent judgement — which is a regulatory outcome, not a criminal conviction.

The charges concerned his conduct as a registered Advanced Nurse Practitioner at the Homeless Healthcare Service. On an occasion in 2021, he told Patient B to “fuck off”. He also abused Patient C verbally, telling her to have a shower because she smelled, that she was childish, that she was pathetic and to grow up.

The bullying of colleagues was repeated and specific. On 19 January 2022, in respect of Colleague A, he told them to go home and that they were not needed when a clinic was in their name, told them not to come into the clinical room, and made them feel unwanted and belittled them. Between 20 January and 11 February 2022, in relation to Colleague B, he ignored a request to assist in putting stock away, refused to help a practice nurse with using the ECG machine, and deliberately acted in an obstructive manner by moving patients from his allocated list back to the triage list. In July 2021, he told Colleague D that he was not capable of doing a clinic and needed to go back upstairs.

The conduct towards Colleague C was the most personal. He spoke to her in a tone that caused her to cry, called her “receptionist” rather than surgery manager, told her a receptionist would do a much better job in her role, and discussed her mental health in the presence of a patient.

The remaining charges concerned Patient A. On 10 and/or 11 February 2022, Thomson failed to document a departure from agreed processes in relation to the patient, failed to accurately record that Patient A was acting in an aggressive and/or threatening manner during the consultation, and failed to ensure that Patient A was seen by two members of medical staff at a time. He then claimed he was unaware that Patient A had to be seen by two members of medical staff — a claim the panel found was dishonest.

The findings were resolved through a Consensual Panel Determination agreed between the NMC and Mr Thomson, signed by him on 12 March 2026 and by the NMC on 20 March 2026. The panel found all charges proved by way of his admissions and, exercising its own independent judgement, determined that the verbal abuse of both patients and colleagues together with dishonesty amounted to serious professional misconduct. It endorsed the parties’ agreement that provisions of the Code including 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 3.4, 8.2, 8.5, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 17.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.5 and 20.8 had been breached, and found his fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel’s assessment left little room for leniency. It identified no mitigating features in the case, and instead set out aggravating factors: the impact of his actions on both patients and colleagues, in that his conduct increased the risk posed to both groups; the repetitive nature of his actions over the span of a number of years; and the element of dishonesty in the Patient A incident, alongside bullying, discriminatory and harassing behaviour which the panel described as indicative of embedded behaviour and attitudinal issues that are more difficult to remediate.

The panel noted that attitudinal concerns are inherently difficult to remediate and that Mr Thomson had not provided any insight or remediation. At the sanction stage, it concluded that his actions were significant departures from the standards expected of a registered nurse and fundamentally incompatible with him remaining on the register, and imposed a striking-off order together with an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover any appeal period.

The decision was published on 22 July 2026, and the record of his erasure was added to MedicWatch, an independent archive of UK regulators’ fitness-to-practise decisions, on 29 July 2026.

Current Status

Dean William Thomson has been struck off the NMC register and is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the United Kingdom. An interim suspension order runs for 18 months to cover the appeal period. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Thomson’s career as a registered nurse in the UK. The panel’s own framing was stark: his actions — verbal abuse of patients, repeated belittling and obstructive conduct towards colleagues, incomplete and inaccurate records, and dishonesty about a patient-safety rule — were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.

Because the panel found no mitigating features and recorded that he had provided no insight or remediation, his route back to registration is narrow: erasure remains in place unless a future review, available only after at least five years, persuades the regulator otherwise. For the patients of the Homeless Healthcare Service and the colleagues who worked alongside him, the determination formally acknowledged conduct that the panel found had increased risk to both.