Case Studies

A family member contacted CCFTV with concerns that CCTV footage had been ' lost' for a serious incident which occurred in their loved one's care home just twenty hours after he was admitted. A Section 42 Safeguarding review substantiated this family’s concerns of abuse in a care home.

19/8/2020 - A Nursing Home incident report states that

A resident grabbed a yoghurt from another service user. On the form, an X was placed in the OTHER box for Incident cause and in the LOW LEVEL box for Type of Harm. The gentleman received two cuts, one above and one below his eye. This was later deemed to have been a head injury but Safeguarding protocols were not followed. The family was contacted by the home to discuss the injury and they were told that there was nothing to worry about. When the family asked exactly what had happened, the manager stated she was a qualified nurse and she knew the difference between a facial and head injury. Unfortunately, for this gentleman,the manager, who has not confirmed that she had any nursing qualifications, clearly did not understand the difference between a facial and a head injury as the safeguarding enquiry substantiated that this assault was a head injury and that the appropriate protocols were not followed.

Between 19/8/2020 and 24/8/2020 the family repeatedly asked if their Father had received medical attention for an injury he sustained just twenty hours after arriving at this out-of-area placement that the family repeatedly stated was not in their father’s best interest. They were to discover later that their father’s care coordinator had not visited the home to review the facility. There had been no best interest meetings between the family and the health authority as stated in the DOLs dated 11/9/2020. The family had Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare yet the health authority chose to ignore this along with both the CARE ACT and the MENTAL CAPACITY ACT. The hospital did not tell the family that their father had an advocate in hospital. Why? Our loved one had received a head injury. He had been punched by another client in a communal lounge receiving a cut above and below his eye when he should have been isolated as stated within the COVID 19 PROTOCOLS.

25/8/2020 The family contacted the local authority’s safeguarding team to raise concerns. A Senior Social Worker advised the care home to send a report to their father GP to review.

Photo published with permission of the family

26/8/2020 The Safeguarding team treated the alert initially as a concern. However, after they received photographic evidence from the family, the concern was raised to a S42.

26/8/2020 A Safeguarding review was sent to the GP from the care home. The GP asked for photographic evidence of their father’s assault to show the injury on the day of the assault and then to show how it had progressed. The care home did not tell the GP or safeguarding team that they had CCTV in all communal areas. They only sent the GP a photograph of the injury seven days after the assault.

30/8/2020 The manager of the care home told the family that CCTV was used in all communal areas to enable the manager to review it if there had been a serious incident.

3/9/2020 The family were asked to sign a CCTV permission form which they should have been given the opportunity to sign before the move to the care home.

4/9/2020 The DOLs documentation states that the home had CCTV in place in all communal areas for the safety of all residents. This gentleman lacked capacity so was unable to give consent to be moved to a care home with CCTV.

5/9/2020 The family contacted a senior social worker to explain the care home had CCTV.

11/9/2020 The Safeguarding team stated that the care home did not mention they had CCTV installed as this care home was still under construction.

Between 19/8/2020 and 11/9/2020 the family were given many different explanations of the assault:- It was a slap, hit, punch,
4. The review document states he had thrown his Zimmer frame

5. Documents state he had walked towards another client and stole a yoghurt

6. Documents states he had gone to a table near another client and help himself to a yoghurt while a senior care staff walked with him.

7. It was only a facial injury.

8. Safeguarding substantiated that this gentleman had indeed suffered a head injury. The Safeguarding meeting was held seven days after this gentleman died.

11/9/2020 The manager of the care home confirmed to the Safeguarding - yes they did have CCTV of the incident.

25/9/2020 Safeguarding confirmed to the family that the care home did have CCTV footage and they wanted to review it to assess the incident. They were unaware whether the CCTV had an audio facility.

1/10/2020 Safeguarding contacted the family to say that the care home had lost the CCTV footage. How can this footage have been lost?

CCTV is vital to support the elderly and vulnerable especially for people who have cognitive impairment who may not have the capacity to keep themselves safe and out of danger. It is our responsibility to ensure all the vulnerable and elderly are given dignity of care in a safe and caring environment which supports them throughout their lives.

This care home, the family say, was still under construction as is evident from a DOLs document 11/9/2020. "The move to this care home was not in this gentleman’s best interests. The care coordinator failed in her duty of care. Her complete unwillingness to respond to our family’s concerns, to conduct a best interest meeting and to review the home to assess its suitability for our loved one was staggering.

CCTV is a vital part of multi-disciplinary approach to protect the vulnerable and elderly in any care setting. To lose the footage is shocking and devastating for our family. Will we ever know what truly happened just twenty hours after our loved one had been admitted to an inappropriate out-of-areacare home without a best interest meeting and without a best interest assessment to determine the home’suitability? Our loved ones care plans clearly stated he needed a calm, quiet environment with ‘limited noise distraction’. He was sent to live in the midst of a building site. This is a failure of two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the care home which did not meet his basic needs and sadly died seven weeks later of willful neglect. He was deprived of the most basic human rights – a right to a family life.

The family say their concerns have never been addressed. Who will be accountable for the countless failures of two Clinical Commissioning Groups and this care home?

Care Campaign for the Vulnerable are lead influencers in the care sector on the use of safety monitoring in the care of our vulnerable elderly in care homes and care staff. We promote the benefits of this technology and how it should be utilised as a vital care assist tool, championing providers who operate independant safety monitoring. If you are a Care Provider and want to learn more about this, please contact www.care-protect.co.uk

This account is from the family. Care Campaign for the Vulnerable has seen documentation and reports of the issues in their loved ones care and we are fully supporting this family. If you are interested in this case study please contact ccftv.cares@gmail.com