IMCA Client G

G was residing at a Nursing Home. A referral was made to the IMCA team in relation to a Care Review. The referral stated that there were two safeguarding issues. G had made allegations against a male member of staff and there were also concerns regarding G’s friendship with a gentleman who visited regularly.

Barriers faced in being heard:

Nursing staff informed the IMCA that there was a concern about G’s friend after he was found in her room with the door locked. Staff stopped G’s friend from taking G out into the community following this event as G could not tell staff where they were going. It was felt that G did not have capacity to decide whether she should or wanted go with him.

Care home staff and the appointed Social Worker informed the IMCA that G had visited the nursing home and been assessed in December 2016 and appeared to have capacity to make the decision of where she lived and chose the home herself. Care home staff stated that since moving to the home, G’s presentation had changed and there appeared to be a deterioration in her cognition.

The care home manager stated that G’s friend had been managing G’s finances and while there was no evidence to suggest financial abuse, deputyship through the Court of Protection was being considered. G’s friend had been found by a member of staff in G’s room with the door locked. Following advice from the local Safeguarding Team, G and her friend now met in public areas of the home. The IMCA informed the care home manager and appointed social worker that g had stated that she enjoys these visits, and did not raise any concerns.

A discussion was held around G’s allegations against a male member of staff. G made a number of allegations to care staff and her friend. Police investigated the allegation and did not taking any action but have left the case open in case any more allegations are made. The staff member had been off work for a while but had returned and was working exclusively on the first floor away from G whose room is on the ground floor.

During the discussion, the manager suggested that G be moved to a sister home a few miles away. As this was the first time the IMCA had been made aware of a potential move, the IMCA stated that a discussion would need to be held with G in order to ascertain her wishes and views. G was consistent in her view that she did not want to move to another Nursing Home.

Advocacy undertaken:

  • The IMCA met with G, consulted with nursing staff and accessed records.
  • The IMCA met G in private. During the conversation, G stated that she liked where she lived and that staff are very nice. G was asked if she had visitors which she said she did. She told the IMCA that her friend visits regularly, that he looks after her and does a lot for her. G stated that she enjoyed the visits she had with her friend.
  • The IMCA discussed the two safeguarding issues with the Care Home manager and the appointed Social Worker. Police and the Safeguarding team had been involved in relation to both concerns/allegations, and no further action was taken.

Canlyniadau:

Following IMCA involvement, the Social Worker and home manager agreed that it was in G’s best interests to continue for her to meet her friend in a public area in the home, but for this decision to be reviewed regularly, especially if G requests to meet with her friend in a more private setting.

The Social Worker and home manager agreed that it was not in G’s best interest to move to another placement as she had expressed a clear and consistent wish to stay at her present home. Following IMCA involvement, an application was made to the Court of Protection in relation to finances.

There was no DOLS authorisation in place. The IMCA raised this with the home manager who agreed to ring the DOLS Coordinator and submit a request for an urgent authorisation.

Previous Case Study Next Case Study