Was important and relevant context omitted?
Was important and relevant context omitted?
In our view, the relevant facts as regards the door-holding incidents are as follows: in the incident on the morning of 14 June 2022, and a handful of similar incidents in the preceding weeks,
JW was on waking night shift, with primary duty of caring for Mr Y;
Miss X was generally asleep during the night;
caring for Miss X was not JW’s responsibility; she was not trained to help Miss X with her PEG; she had not read Miss X’s care documents; nevertheless, the management of the care home had allowed a ‘working practice’ to develop such that JW would look in on Miss X if she woke during the night;
in each of the incidents, Miss X woke (in the middle of the night or in the early morning), wishing to have her pad changed; JW responded by going to look in on Miss X’s room to see what was the matter;
JW could not help Miss X by changing her pad; it required two female carers to do so;
Miss X became upset because JW told her that her pad could not be changed and she had to go back to bed until the morning shift arrived;
when upset, Miss X would not uncommonly lunge at and try to hit carers; this happened here; JW responded by leaving the room and holding the door shut for several minutes;
JW’s motivation in holding Miss X’s door shut was both to prevent Miss X from coming after her and to de-escalate the situation; JW kept a listening ear for any indication that Miss X was in danger; the episode on 14 June 2022 ended with another carer, NJ, taking over from JW and managing to calm Miss X.
In our view, DBS’s core factual finding about JW holding Miss X’s door closed, omitted important and relevant context, namely that JW was in a very difficult position given the following combination of factors:
there being no way to change Miss X’s pad, if she woke in the night, as only one female carer was available
JW being expected to look in on Miss X, if she woke in the night
JW being ill-equipped to deal with Miss X, as her principal duty was to look after Mr Y
Miss X’s proclivity to become violent with carers, when she was upset and frustrated.
We would describe this state of affairs as one of management dysfunction: in other words, those responsible for managing the home had organised things such that there was no satisfactory way of dealing with the possibility of Miss X waking during the night wanting to have her pad changed.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to ALLOW the appeal. The Respondent made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact it made and on which its decision of 12 December 2022 (reference DBS6
- DBS’s decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- The grant of permission to appeal
- The evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- Background facts
- Review of JW’s evidence on disputed matters
- JW’s role at the home
- The requirements for Miss X’s personal care
- Miss X’s occasional “behaviour”
- The incidents where JW held the door to Miss X’s room closed
- Our analysis of mistake of fact and/or law in DBS’s decision
- Was important and relevant context omitted?
- Does this omission in DBS’s decision amount to a mistake of law or fact?
- The grounds enumerated in JW’s “perfected ground of appeal”
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 250 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)