[2025] UKUT 238 (AAC)

In its ‘barring decision summary’ document, the DBS had “definite concerns” in two areas. One of these was “Any other attitude endorsing harmful behaviour”; the document gives the following “rationale” for DBS’s concern under this head:

It appears that on a number of occasions [AB] has imposed her own perspective and methods of treatment on service users in her care, ignoring their care plans and refusing to follow instructions from seniors for their care. It appears that she continued to behave in this manner despite being told her actions were inappropriate. Her actions put service users at risk of physical and emotional harm.

When subsequently employed at [the charity supporting people with learning disabilities] it appears that within 6 weeks, she repeated similar behaviour on at least 3 occasions, causing service users emotional harm.

[AB’s] apparent inability to adhere to policies and procedures in preference to her own perspective, raises the concern that she holds an attitude that her opinions supersede those of her colleagues and the needs of service users and that this attitude is embedded. Should this attitude continue to be repeated in regulated activity in future, she would pose a risk of physical and emotional harm to those in her care.

….

… It is of concern that despite the number of allegations against her, the findings of [the nursing home] and those of the DBS she appears unable to consider that she was at fault or her conduct inappropriate. It is of further concern that her resignation letter acknowledges that she is abrupt and aggressive and does not appear to consider that she should attempt to change.

The other area in which, according to DBS’s ‘barring decision summary’ document, it had definite concerns, was “callousness / lack of empathy”; the following “rationale” is given for DBS’s concern under this head:

A number of incidents have been evidenced of [AB] displaying a lack of empathy for the service users in her care. It appears she refused to reposition service users to protect their skin integrity, commenting that not doing so for one day would not kill them. It appears she transferred a service user through the home in a state of undress. It appears she failed to follow the Epilepsy Support Guidelines for a service user she knew was prone to seizures.

A concern is raised that [AB] appears not to consider the harm her neglectful actions could have on the service users in her care. Instead it appears she imposed her own perspective of what their needs would be. Should she continue to demonstrate a lack of consideration for service users rights and needs in future she would pose a risk of physical and emotional harm.

Post reps: It is acknowledged that [AB] has submitted character references from 6 people who state that are ex colleagues or service users. These attest to their view that she was a kind and reliable carer. However there is no evidence that the referees are aware of her disciplinary issues at [the nursing home] or [the charity supporting people with learning disabilities]. [AB] states she "has been in caring roles for 40 years and is dedicated to the well-being of those she cared for", it is of concern that in her reps she has not expressed any concern for the service users involved in the incidents which led to allegations against her.

The DBS document expresses “some concern” under the “irresponsible and reckless” head, due to AB failing to appropriately safeguard the service user who was having a seizure, when she “neglected to summon help”.