A psychiatric nurse who allegedly slapped a patient has had no findings made against him by a fitness to practise committee due to insufficient evidence.
The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI) inquiry heard on Monday that neither of two witnesses to the alleged assault were prepared to give evidence.
The nurse, who was granted an anonymity order, represented himself and was referred to as AB.
The inquiry heard AB was also the subject of fitness to practise proceedings in the UK before its Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and as a result he was removed from the register there.
The registrant informed the NMBI of the outcome of those proceedings.
Francesca Glynn, of Tughans Solicitors, for the chief executive officer of the NMBI, told the committee that body-worn footage previously existed but that no copy of the footage was provided to the chief executive.
Glynn said regarding the transcript of the footage, the chief executive could not establish the identity of the speakers in the context of whether any strike was attributed to the registrant.
She added it was unlikely the transcript would be admitted or relied upon at the inquiry.
Glynn also said the chief executive had written letters to the two key factual witnesses from the proceedings before the NMC.
However, neither witness made contact with the chief executive or was willing to take part in the fitness to practise proceedings, Glynn told the committee.
The registrant told the committee he had reflected carefully on the circumstances of the complaint against him and that he was fully committed to the highest professional and safety standards.
Tom Hogan, barrister and legal assessor in the proceedings, advised the committee that they had little choice in the circumstances but to make no findings.
At the outset of the inquiry, Glynn outlined the grounds on which the registrant wished to make the application for anonymity, of which the chief executive was supportive.
These included that, as the chief executive was not seeking findings, the publication of the identity of the registrant did not serve to protect the public interest.
Also, there was a risk of harming the reputation of the registrant if he was identified along with the allegations notwithstanding no findings being made and that it could affect his current and future employment.