Kenneth Macadaeg

Introduction

Kenneth Macadaeg is a former registered nurse who was struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council register on 30 July 2026, after the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found that, during a night shift in February 2024, he touched a patient’s penis without clinical justification on one or more occasions and twice commented on the patient’s erection. The panel found both the touching and the comments were sexually motivated. These are findings of a professional regulator made to the civil standard; they are not a criminal conviction, and no criminal proceedings are mentioned in the published determination. Alongside the striking-off order, the committee imposed an 18-month interim suspension.

Background Information

The public record on Macadaeg comes almost entirely from the published NMC determination, republished by the independent record service MedicWatch in August 2026. He was a registered nurse, held on the NMC register under number 23K1962O, and the case concerned his care of a patient referred to in the determination as Patient A, a vulnerable patient receiving care after surgery. The allegations spanned three separate episodes: an alleged touching of a second patient, Patient B, in or about September 2023; the February 2024 night shift involving Patient A; and an alleged breach of an interim conditions of practice order on 10 May 2025. The substantive hearing ran from 21 to 30 July 2026, with the decision dated 30 July 2026.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. This section separates what the panel decided from what it rejected. Charges 1 to 4 — the February 2024 touching of Patient A and the two comments — were found proved on the civil standard; they are regulatory findings, not a criminal conviction. Charges 5 to 7 — the September 2023 allegation involving Patient B and the alleged May 2025 breach of an interim conditions of practice order — were found not proved and must be read as unproven allegations. Where the accounts conflicted, the panel preferred Patient A’s consistent account and rejected Macadaeg’s account as not credible.

The panel found proved that between 15 and 16 February 2024, on one or more occasions, Macadaeg touched Patient A’s penis without clinical justification. It also found proved that on 16 February 2024 he said to Patient A ‘you have a very strong erection’ or words to that effect and ’this is a very strong erection’ or words to that effect. Both the touching and the comments were found sexually motivated.

Macadaeg’s own account, which the panel rejected, was that he had been washing dirt from Patient A’s thigh and massaging his legs to raise his blood pressure. The panel did not find that account credible, preferred Patient A’s consistent account, and found neither clinical justification nor any plausible non-sexual explanation for the touching or the comments. It further found that any consent Patient A gave had been given under a false pretence, because Macadaeg had presented the contact as clinical care when it was not. The proved facts were found to amount to misconduct, breaching Code standards 1.1, 5.1, 20.1, 20.5 and 20.6.

The panel was equally clear about what it could not find. On the September 2023 charge concerning Patient B, it held that the NMC had not provided sufficient evidence that Macadaeg was the person who cared for Patient B, noting the absence of rosters or patient notes and that Patient B was ‘woozy’ from anaesthetic and identified him some four months later; the associated sexual-motivation charge fell away. The final charge — that on 10 May 2025, while his registration was subject to an interim conditions of practice order, he provided intimate care without a chaperone — was not proved because the evidence did not establish that what he provided fell within the meaning of the condition.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The committee found Macadaeg’s fitness to practise impaired by reason of his misconduct, on both public protection and public interest grounds. Finding limbs (a), (b) and (c) of the Grant test engaged, with no insight and no remediation, it directed that he be struck off the register and imposed an 18-month interim suspension order to cover any appeal.

In reaching that outcome the panel identified aggravating factors: an abuse of a position of trust involving a vulnerable patient; the fact that the touching was repeated twice or three times alongside two inappropriate comments; that ‘cleaning’ Patient A’s penis over a sustained period of time amounted, in the panel’s finding, to a sexual assault; predatory behaviour in taking advantage of a vulnerable patient receiving care post-surgery; and the deceitful obtaining of Patient A’s ‘consent’ to handle his penis by presenting the contact as clinical care when it was not. The panel accepted Patient A’s evidence that he was worried about his safety, had sleepless nights, was locking his doors and had flashbacks which affected his sexual relationship.

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

Current Status

Macadaeg remains struck off the NMC register, which means he is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the United Kingdom. The 18-month interim suspension order was imposed to cover any appeal period; no appeal is mentioned in the published determination. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off ends Macadaeg’s ability to work as a registered nurse in the UK, and with review available only after five years and otherwise indefinite, the practical effect is the permanent end of his nursing career there. The findings now form the permanent public record around his name: that he touched a patient’s penis without clinical justification, twice commented on the patient’s erection, did so for sexual motivation, and obtained the patient’s ‘consent’ deceitfully — with his own explanation rejected as not credible. The panel’s findings also recorded the harm to Patient A, who described flashbacks affecting his sexual relationship and locking his doors because he was worried about his safety. The two unproven charges — the September 2023 allegation and the alleged May 2025 breach — were dismissed and should not be treated as findings against him.