Helen Oluyemisi Balogun
Introduction
Helen Oluyemisi Balogun is a former registered nurse who was struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register in May 2026. A fitness to practise panel found that she had made discriminatory comments about patients based on their race and religion, including antisemitic remarks made during patient handovers, and that she had harassed two colleagues. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct and made a striking-off order, with an interim suspension order covering any appeal period.
Background Information
Balogun was registered with the NMC as a nurse under registration number 08L0310E. The charges concerned her conduct towards patients in her care, a relative of a patient, and two colleagues referred to in the determination as Colleague 1 and Colleague 2; the panel later noted that the conduct was directed towards junior colleagues. From the time of the events giving rise to the charges, she worked under an interim conditions of practice order. The determination also records that she had a previously unblemished record and had received some training and testimonials.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings in this section come from a Nursing and Midwifery Council fitness to practise panel determination, which decided the charges on the balance of probabilities. Charges found proved are court-of-record-equivalent regulatory findings; Helen Oluyemisi Balogun was found NOT proved on charges that she called a patient “a devil” in connection with his being Jewish, that she said “Juda” when an Ethiopian colleague entered, and shouting at or calling Colleague 2 “a silly girl” or “hypocrite” were found not proved. Panels do not convict; nothing here is a criminal conviction unless the determination itself records one.
At a substantive hearing that began on 7 August 2025 and ended on 13 May 2026, the panel examined charges arising from remarks made during patient handovers and from her treatment of colleagues. It found proved that, during handovers, she said of a Jewish patient that he was “cheap and tight and that was typical as he is Jewish” and “being cheap as he is Jewish”. A charge that she referred to a patient or a patient’s partner as “half-caste” was found proved by admission, and the panel found that this conduct displayed a discriminatory attitude based on race and/or religion.
The panel also found proved that she harassed Colleague 1, including by singing Christian hymns in her presence, telling her “Jews don’t believe in Jesus”, ignoring her, being dismissive of her and raising her voice to her, with that harassment motivated by a discriminatory attitude on grounds of race and/or religion. A further charge, that she harassed Colleague 2 by snatching a form from her hand and instructing another staff member “just do it, don’t listen to Colleague 2”, was also found proved.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel concluded that the proved conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, breaching the Code’s requirements to treat people fairly and without discrimination, bullying or harassment. It described the discriminatory concerns as attitudinal, deep-seated and deeply embedded, and found that she had very limited personal insight, framing the matter as one of wording rather than of the underlying discriminatory attitudes. It identified a risk of repetition and a real risk of significant harm.
Aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct over a period of time, the abuse of a position of trust through conduct directed towards junior colleagues, a failure to work collaboratively with colleagues, and discriminatory comments made about a vulnerable patient in her care, a relative of a patient, and colleagues. Mitigating factors included early partial admission of the facts, her previous unblemished record, some training and testimonials, and her work under an interim conditions of practice order since the events; the panel placed little weight on the partial admissions and minimal weight on the training certificates.
Current Status
On 13 May 2026 the panel determined that her fitness to practise was currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds, concluded that her conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register, and made a striking-off order removing her from it. An 18-month interim suspension order covers any appeal period. MedicWatch’s practitioner profile, last verified against the NMC register on 17 July 2026, recorded her as erased from the register at the last register check, and directs readers to the official register for her current registration status.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order ended her registration, meaning she could no longer practise as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. The panel’s findings that her insight was very limited and that the discriminatory concerns were deep-seated and deeply embedded were central to its conclusion that she was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register. Those assessments outweighed the mitigation available to her, including her previously unblemished record and her partial admissions, and the case moved directly from an interim conditions of practice order to erasure from the register.