[2024] UKUT 286 (AAC)

Lack of Training Challenge

Mr Reichhold submitted that the DBS made no material mistake in relation to the Lack of Training Challenge (which again was raised in the Grounds for the first time). There is a record of various training apparently provided to the Appellant by the Employer [63-67]. It includes training relating to “care plans” and “care planning” (amongst others). It also includes training relating to “continence care in social and community care” completed by the Appellant on 25 October 2021 [64].

Further, and in any event, he argued that any such mistake of fact would not be material in all the circumstances. No further or specialist training was required. The Appellant had many years of experience working in similar environments. The Appellant had others, such as “S[]” (her manager) she could turn to for guidance.

The evidence indicates that X’s care plan was readily available and that the Appellant simply failed to read it. The care plan, including the most relevant section [84], would be straightforward for an experienced practitioner to understand.

In a section specifically on “continence management” [84], it states: X “requires support from the district nurse team in ensuring her catheter is managed and changed regularly”; staff are “to ensure that [X] is always kept clean and dry and any issues concerning her catheter are to be reported to the senior on shift so the district nurses can be contacted”; and, again, that “any concerns [in relation to the Catheter] are to be reported to the senior member of staff so that district nurse team can be contacted” [84]. It flags risks of a hazard relating to continence as “high”, and the severity of such a hazard as “high”. It emphasises that the aim is to support X in a dignified and respectful manner with continence. The evidence also indicates that other colleagues were expressing concern about the situation and seeking an intervention from the district nurse team (e.g. KF [115]).