He can always close his eyes': Nurse put porn channel on for paralysed, non-verbal care home resident and was found guilty of misconduct

Published 26 October 2026, 17:41

• An NMC panel found Kelly Marie Lawrence, a night nurse at Chapel House care home in Cheshire, guilty of misconduct after she switched on adult channel 'Babe Station' for a quadriplegic, non-verbal resident in the early hours of 31 May 2020.
• Colleagues warned Lawrence the move was inappropriate — the resident, who could only communicate by blinking, indicated he did not want it on, and staff turned it off around ten minutes later.
• Placed under a six-month conditions of practice order, Lawrence must now complete reflective training; the panel found 'a member of the public, properly informed of the circumstances, would consider her conduct deplorable.'

A nurse who told colleagues that a paralysed, non-verbal care home resident "could close his eyes if they did not wish to watch the adult channel" has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct and placed under a conditions of practice order.

An NMC fitness-to-practise panel found Kelly Marie Lawrence, a registered adult nurse who worked night shifts at Chapel House care home in Cheshire, guilty of misconduct after she turned on the pornographic TV channel "Babe Station" for a quadriplegic, non-verbal resident — referred to only as Resident A — in the early hours of 31 May 2020.

The panel found that her conduct was "deplorable" and that she had not taken into account the psychological and physical harm her actions could potentially cause.

Resident A's vulnerability was extreme.

Health care assistant Immi Orme's written statement described a man who had suffered an acquired brain injury after being knocked off his bicycle as a teenager.

He was quadriplegic, non-verbal, wheelchair and bed-bound, doubly incontinent, and centrally fed through a PEG tube.

His only means of communication was blinking.

As Orme explained: "one blink meant 'yes', two blinks meant 'no', and three blinks meant that Resident A did not want to communicate."

On the night in question, Resident A was unsettled and groaning.

Lawrence concluded he was experiencing sexual frustration — a view her colleagues did not share.

Orme's statement to the NMC described what happened next: "Kelly came to the conclusion that Resident A could be experiencing sexual frustration and suggested whether she should put a pornography programme on the television for him, like Babe Station. Myself and the other staff said that we did not think this would be appropriate and did not think it would be allowed. However, Kelly went ahead and put Babe Station on for him to watch. None of the other staff agreed that she should put this programme on for Resident A."

Lawrence later explained her reasoning during an investigation interview.

She said she had asked Resident A whether he was in pain — he blinked no — and whether he needed to pass wind — he blinked no again.

She then asked him if he was feeling "horny," and he blinked yes.

When challenged about whether Resident A might be distressed by the content, Lawrence said he "could close his eyes if they did not wish to watch the adult channel."

Other staff entered Resident A's room and turned the television off approximately ten minutes later, after Resident A indicated through blinking that he did not want it on.

The NMC noted that Lawrence had "not established if Resident A wanted to watch females or what their sexual preference was."

Colleagues and management rejected Lawrence's theory.

Orme said: "Sometimes when he was groaning, it was just because he wanted some company, as he would go quiet when staff entered his room and chatted to him."

She added that she found it "an odd conclusion for Kelly to jump to."

Interim home manager Tracey Gerrard, a registered nurse with experience in brain injury care, told the panel that putting pornography on for a resident had never featured in any care plan she had encountered in her career.

She warned that Resident A "could have been psychologically harmed" by the content.

"If someone is disabled in this way, watching pornography could make them feel uncomfortable. If they are sexually active, it may remind them of what they can no longer do and could trigger a low mood or depression," she said.

She added that if the programme had aroused him, "he would not be able to do anything about it, which could have made him uncomfortable."

The panel found both charges against Lawrence proved.

It determined that she had not consulted Resident A's care plan, had not established whether a sexual needs care plan existed, had not used the eye-gaze communication tool available to him, had not consulted his family or relevant professionals, and had ignored the concerns of colleagues who knew him well.

The panel found that Lawrence's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, concluding that "a member of the public, properly informed of the circumstances, would consider her conduct deplorable."

Lawrence did not attend the hearing.

She informed the NMC in November 2021 and once more in November 2023 that nursing was no longer her profession and that she remained uncertain about whether she wanted to go back to it.

The panel found she had shown only "some developing insight" but had "not provided any insight into the impact her actions could have had on a vulnerable resident."

She provided no reflective statement, no evidence of further training, and no explanation of what she would do differently.

The panel's sanctions included a six-month conditions of practice order, subject to review, together with an interim conditions of practice order lasting 18 months to cover the appeal period.

Lawrence is required to engage in reflective practice alongside a nursing colleague to review her conduct toward Resident A, finish training in communicating with non-verbal adults and in evaluating the needs of vulnerable adults with complex needs, and keep the NMC updated regarding any employment or study.

The panel ruled out suspension as disproportionate, finding no evidence of deep-seated attitudinal problems and noting the misconduct was a single incident.