[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)

JW’s evidence was that Miss X was supposed to have “2:1” support for all personal care and that personal care was to be provided by female staff; hence, JW was not allowed to change Miss X’s pad when she woke in the night wanting it changed, because two female carers were required for that task (and no other female carer was available at the home, at night, at the relevant time). JW’s evidence was that she had not been “allocated” as a carer for Miss X (in part because she was not fully trained in managing a PEG tube). JW’s evidence was that, accordingly, she had not seen Miss X’s support plan, nor her “communication passport”, prior to the events in question.

Ms Fletcher corroborated JW’s evidence that Miss X required 2:1 personal care from female carers. Ms Fletcher’s statement also said this: “ … it was deemed and you [JW] were expected to see to Miss X because you were there, and Miss X was supposed to stay in bed all night, on occasions in which Miss X got up or required care, you were on your own and expected to deal with it, there was no support from management and on call would not always answer the call, or could be the other end of the country and haven’t a clue who Miss X was or anything about Miss X care.”

We again accept this evidence, noting that the care home management’s own “internal investigation summary report” stated that Miss X required “2:1” care. It seems to us that although JW’s principal responsibility was 1:1 care of Mr Y overnight, the management of the care home and JW had fallen into a ‘working practice’ of JW also checking in on Miss X when she woke at night (even though the management of the care home knew that JW could not administer personal care for Miss X on her own, was not trained in PEG-related matters, and generally had not been equipped to deal with Miss X).