Next in our series of ebriefings on the Government’s Green Paper: Transforming public procurement; looking at the Chapter 4 proposal to change the basis of contract awards.
The CQC’s prosecution earlier this month of an Essex Care home (Rushcliffe Care Limited) comes as a salient reminder of the need for providers to act promptly when they are aware that a service user’s condition has deteriorated to ensure that their risk assessments and care plans are up to date.
This case has echoes of the St Anne’s Community Service prosecution (which was the CQC’s first prosecution after taking over in such cases from the Health and Safety Executive in June 2016). In both cases, the incidents giving rise to the prosecutions happened whilst service users were with care workers who were supporting them with personal care (showering). In both cases, the service user’s posture had deteriorated in the preceding weeks.
However, unlike St Anne’s, the Essex care home had not made a timely referral for a reassessment of the service user’s needs. Sadly, in the St Anne’s case, the service user died and in this case, the service user suffered a life-changing serious injury.
In the Rushcliffe Care matter, a healthcare worker at the service had raised concerns about the deterioration of the service user’s condition; these concerns were apparently not acted upon. Risk assessments were insufficient, and there had been a failure to refer her promptly for specialist assessment, this was despite the deterioration in her posture and risks identified by staff while showering. Additionally, the equipment used to support her was unsafe as it was the wrong size and provided insufficient posture support.
Before June 2015, the provider had no policy or suitable guidance for using commode shower chairs safely and staff who showered the resident did not have adequate instruction on how to keep her safe. No lap belt was in place, and there were no foot plates on the chair being used.
Rushcliffe Care Limited was prosecuted for a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This sets outs a provider and registered manager’s duty to ensure safe provision of care of treatment.
A fine of £120,000 was imposed plus costs of £17,826.37, and a victim surcharge was awarded of £170.
The key practical points for providers to review include:
- Ensuring that staff are trained to recognise changes in a service user’s needs and that they know who to escalate matters too. Do you have a clear policy in place that all staff must read which gives clarity about who to report to and whose responsibility it is to take action? Chase up referrals to primary healthcare services and ensure you can evidence this.
- Checking equipment is suitable for the purpose you are using it for. In the Rushmore case, the lap belt and footrests were not used. They have now determined not to use the particular piece of equipment in the service again.
- Ensure that you receive and disseminate alerts from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHPR alerts) and can evidence that they have been read. See MDA/2015/018.
The MHRA states that it continues to receive reports of injuries and fatalities because posture/safety belts on assistive technology devices aren’t used, fitted or adjusted properly or they haven’t been maintained correctly. It refers to the fact that:
- Problems include the person in the seat slipping down and suffering positional asphyxiation or strangulation, or falling out of the seat and incurring an injury.
- For some people, a belt alone cannot keep them in an appropriate sitting position and they may need other supports to stop them slipping down (e.g. tilt-in-space or supportive seating).
These alerts will always form part of the evidence used in a prosecution.
For further information
To discuss an incident in your services or for help in developing your approach to risk management, please contact Sarah Knight or call 0121 214 3733.
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
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.