Our Housing team are delighted following a formal tender procurement process to have been appointed to three lots under the new multi-million-pound legal services framework for The Riverside Group.
Many of us who have been following the unfolding Inquest concerning the death of Richard Handley, are not surprised that the Coroner found gross and significant failures on the part of those caring for him.
This language has a special meaning in the Coroner’s court and is usually the precursor for a finding of Neglect. Neglect is not a conclusion in itself but will often be determined when the cause of death is natural, but there is a clear and direct contribution to the death by avoidable acts or omissions.
Neglect, in this context, means a gross failure to provide adequate nourishment, liquid, basic medical attention, shelter or warmth for someone in a dependent position (because of youth, age, illness or incarceration), who cannot provide it for themselves. Failure to provide medical attention for a dependent person whose physical condition is such as to show he obviously needs it may amount to Neglect. It is very important to appreciate the importance of the obvious need and dependency of the individual.
In this case, Richard Handley’s problems with constipation were well known and had been managed until the nature of his care changed from residential to a supported living arrangement. However, it appears that whilst the Coroner criticised the overall missed opportunities leading up to his admission to hospital and despite the language used, there was no finding of Neglect.
It is not enough to show that there has been a missed opportunity to render care that might have made a difference, it must be shown that the care should have been given and that it would have saved or prolonged life. It is likely in this case that the Coroner could not point to a specific failure in this regard and that is why he did not determine Neglect.
Whilst this has been a disappointment to the family, the focus of the inquest is to establish how Mr Handley came by his death. Often the outcome is less important than the journey taken in order to obtain the necessary evidence to come to that conclusion. It should be remembered that the Inquest is a fact-finding exercise and although it will investigate culpable behaviour, it is not the forum to apportion blame.
Richard Handley’s avoidable death is tragic, and his family must be devastated. They should hopefully, in time, find some solace in the knowledge that there has been scrutiny of the differences in the nature of care given when stepping down from residential care to a supported living environment (presumably with assessments being undertaken as to his care needs) and of course the overarching communication problems for people with Learning Disabilities. There are many vulnerable people who need to access medical services and who are not able to express themselves clearly.
The CQC's review (before the Inquest) looked at NHS trusts in England providing acute, community and mental health services. Placing a particular focus on people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. The review found that:
- The level of acceptance and sense of inevitability when people with a learning disability or mental illness die early is too common.
- There is no consistent national framework in place to support the NHS to investigate deaths.
- A failure to prioritise learning from deaths so that action can be taken to improve care for future patients and their families.
- Many carers and families do not find the NHS to be open or transparent.
- Families and carers are not routinely told what their rights are when a relative dies, what will happen or how they can access support or advocacy.
So what does this all mean? It is clear that there were missed opportunities by all those who were caring for Richard Handley in the last five years of his life. There was no joint approach to his care. He was seen by healthcare workers, a general practitioner, district nurses and of course finally treated in hospital. The Coroner could not, therefore, single out any one failure but his investigation revealed a systemic failure in dealing with a vulnerable person unable to communicate effectively for himself.
We do hope that now that the inquest has concluded, there will be positive steps taken to do more to join the health and care services provided for people like Richard Handley to ensure that communication and services improve. It is not known at the time of writing whether there have been such recommendations by the Coroner exercising his statutory duty to issue a Report for the Prevention of Future Deaths, but it would be surprising if there was not. If and when a report is published we will provide a further briefing.
If you would like to find out more information about the issues raised in this article, please contact Sarah Knight.
Necrotising Fasciitis, more commonly known as the ‘flesh-eating disease’, is a significant medical condition that requires urgent treatment.
Many of us who have been following the unfolding Inquest, are not surprised that the Coroner found gross and significant failures on the part of those caring for him.
Transferring out of SHPS will not be suitable for every housing association. So what should housing associations do?
In all the action to remove defective cladding, leaseholders have been the elephant in the room. Whilst social landlords might have adopted a wait and see approach private landlords do not have that luxury.
We welcome the Labour Party’s commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative economy. We wholeheartedly support the ambition to grow this vitally important part of the economy.
It was first referred to in the Charities Act 2006 (which was subsequently replaced by the Charities Act 2011) but it has finally been announced that charitable companies are able to convert to a charitable incorporated organisation (“CIO”).
The Private Members Bill Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill 2017-19 now has Government support and was debated at second reading on Friday 19 January 2018.
In short - yes. This is a common question in personal injury or clinical negligence claims and has recently come before the High Court in judicial review proceedings.
GDPR The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will come into force on 25 May 2018 and bring changes to the rules governing data protection and the requirements placed on organisations which control or process personal data.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.