Page Section: Centre Content Column
Community care
Consumer empowerment
Respite centre
self advocacy
Caregiver
inadvertently leaves rude message on answerphone
Complaint about a
reduction in hours
Getting the
right wheelchair
Consumer
with learning difficulty gets hospital liaison
person
Dealing
with a rough caregiver
Consumer
empowerment
Home care agency ~ Right 5 ~ effective communication ~ Right 7~
informed choice & consent ~ Alzheimer's ~ EPoA
An advocate was contacted by a consumer who, while
suffering from Alzheimer's, was still living in her own home. The
consumer wanted support with issues of communication between the
home care agency, her daughter and son. The daughter held the EPoA
and all discussions and decisions were being made by the consumer's
daughter and caregivers. The consumer's son had concerns about what
was happening. As part of the discussion it became apparent that
the EPoA was not enacted and that this was confirmed by a
psychiatrist who had recently assessed the
consumer.
At a meeting with the consumer, she told the advocate she
was being excluded from the decision-making process on a daily
basis as the caregivers spoke with her daughter despite the
consumer being present. The consumer lacked understanding about how
an EPoA worked and thought this was how supported home care was
meant to be.
Upon being given the information about the Code and EPoA
the consumer said she felt empowered to deal with the situation
with the support of her son.
Two weeks later the advocate contacted the consumer
who had dealt very well with the situation. She had a new home care
agency and was being included in communication, being given
information and was making her own decisions. She had also written
a response to what she considered an inappropriate comment made by
a caregiver in her daily care book.
The consumer and her son were extremely happy with the
support and information provided by the advocate and requested the
advocacy file be closed.
Go to top
Respite centre self
advocacy
Right 5 ~ Effective communication ~ Right
10 ~ Complaint process ~ Respite care centre
An advocate was contacted regarding an incident that had
occurred at a respite day activity centre and the way the complaint
about the incident had been handled. The incident was a safety
issue involving one consumer placing a plastic bag over the head of
another.
Upon addressing the concerns with management the
complainant was advised the consumer who had taken the action was
unaware of the danger due to their intellectual disability. As a
result of this discussion a decision was made that the family
member of the complainant would not attend the activity centre but
the family still wanted to utilise the respite facility. The
management of the facility declined the request and would not enter
into any further communication.
The complainant felt that the management had handled the
complaint in an unprofessional manner by refusing any discussion
over the respite care issue, and not providing any
alternatives.
After discussing how to progress the matter with the
advocate, the complainant chose to write to the Trust Board
responsible for the facility requesting the decision be rescinded
and that the manager apologise for the way she had handled the
complaint.
The complainant later advised the advocate that she had
received a "wonderfully written letter" from the Trustees and was
very happy with the outcome.
Go to top
Caregiver inadvertently leaves
rude message on answerphone
Home based support services ~ Caregiver ~ Right 1 ~ Respect
& privacy ~ Self-advocacy
A consumer with a physical disability led a full life in her own
home, with support services in place. This had worked very well
until recently.
The caregiver had phoned the consumer and left a message to say
they would be a bit late. However, the caregiver ontinued to
talk on their own phone when the conversation had finished with the
consumer. What the caregiver hadn't realized was they hadn't
actually hung up the phone, therefore the answer phone had picked
up the rest of the conversation.
This resulted in the caregiver being overheard talking about the
consumer to a third party, identifying and sharing information
about the consumer and being generally disrespectful.
The consumer tried to speak with the caregiver themselves by
playing the message to them. The caregiver denied that this was
what had been said.
The consumer became unsure about what to do so contacted the
local advocate.
The advocate suggested to the consumer that an option was to
have a meeting with the manager of the home-based support services
to discuss and play the message. The advocate offered to support
the consumer at this meeting should she want this. The consumer
said she would prefer to have the support of the advocate if at all
possible.
The provider rang in response to the consumer's complaint and
request for a meeting and told the consumer when the meeting would
be, without checking with the consumer whether this suited or
not.
The consumer decided to go ahead and meet with the
provider on her own after speaking with the advocate on how to
approach the meeting. The consumer managed to talk with the
provider, play the message and discuss how this had affected the
consumer.
The provider wrote down the message in full, stated it would be
typed up then given to the consumer to be checked and signed as
true. Once that was done the provider would work with the
caregiver.
At the end of the meeting the provider informed the consumer
that a new caregiver would be assigned the following day. The
consumer rang the advocate to let her know what had happened.
The advocate was able to congratulate the consumer on being
an effective self advocate.
Go to top
Complaint about a
reduction in hours
Needs Assessment Service Coordination (NASC) ~ Reassessment
~ Right 3 ~ Dignity & independence
A consumer had a reassessment with a needs assessor from a NASC
for people aged under 65. She was told that her hours would be
reduced. The consumer was currently receiving 16 hours home help
for cooking, cleaning and making her bed. These hours did not
include any personal care in the weekends.
She was told that the NASC was looking at taking an hour off per
day in the evening for meal preparation. The needs assessor told
the consumer that she could just have frozen food, although she did
not like frozen food and would need the current hours for meal
preparation.
Before the needs assessor came, the consumer felt as though she
had already decided to take the hours away from her. Due to
the consumer now having an orthotic for her inverted foot, she
required extra hours to work out a way she could put the orthotic
on independently.
The consumer contacted an advocate to assist and support her
with writing a letter of complaint to the NASC. After sending the
letter of complaint to the NASC the consumer decided she would like
to meet with the NASC to discuss her concerns.
The consumer contacted the NASC to organise a meeting with them
which would take place at the consumer's house. During this
process the consumer kept the advocate informed as she wanted the
advocate to attend and support her at the meeting.
A meeting was held at the consumer's house with the advocate and
Quality Manager and Service Coordinator from the NASC. At the
meeting the service coordinator outlined to the consumer that she
would receive 20 hours home help a week, in order for the consumer
to receive some home help in the weekends as well as well as
assisting her with her orthotic.
The consumer was happy with the outcome of the meeting and
thanked the advocate for supporting her through the
process.
Go to top
Getting the right
wheelchair
Wheelchair provider ~ Right 1 ~ Respect ~ Right 3 ~ Dignity
and ndependence
A young, independent wheelchair user felt he had been unfairly
treated by his wheelchair provider as his independence was
permanently reduced by having to use an ill-fitting wheelchair.
The consumer had first been measured for his new wheelchair 12
months previous. The wheelchair came back too wide. However, he
used the new chair for a couple of months, not realising the damage
it was doing to his upper arms, so much so it resulted in him
requiring cortisone injections.
Another measurement was eventually taken and he used a loan
chair in the meantime. The consumer believed his new chair had been
sent back to the manufacturer in Australia for the adjustments to
be made. He found out this was not the case. The damage to
his upper arms worsened, further restricting his independence, as
the loan chair was heavy, and difficult to put in his
car.
Because of the ill-fitting, heavy loan chair the consumer went
back to using his old one, but this was unsatisfactory as it put
pressure on his back and the foot rests no longer supported his
feet. He had back pain and recurring chest infections from poor
posture, and his independence and health were badly
affected.
The consumer contacted the advocacy service for support to meet
with the wheelchair funding provider. The consumer was concerned
the same mistake with the measurements would be repeated as he
wasn't sure the provider understood the importance of taking
correct measurements.
At the meeting the consumer explained to the provider his
concerns and explained the profound impact on his
life the poor measurements had made. The provider
assured the consumer the correct measurement would be sent to the
manufacturer in Australia that day and his new chair should be
available within 6-8weeks.
The consumer was happy with the advocate's support. He felt he
had been heard and the importance of a correct fitting chair was
acknowledged. The consumer felt confident his chair would be
delivered to him in a couple of months and would contact the
advocacy service if he required any more support.
Go to top
Consumer with
learning difficulty gets hospital liaison person
DHB ~ Right 5 ~ Effective information ~ Right 6 ~ Fully
informed ~ Learning difficulty
A consumer with a learning difficulty sought an advocate's
support to write to a DHB to request a meeting with a doctor and
some of the clinical managers.
He had frequent admissions to hospital and every time he
was admitted with severe pain the staff had given him conflicting
information. He said he was told he would be having an x-ray and
when that didn't occur he was told it was due to his not being able
to be found on the ward. At a later stage he was told it was
because he had been lost in the system. He was then told he was to
have an ultrasound scan followed by surgery but no-one had ever
discussed a need for surgical intervention.
At the meeting, with a support worker and the advocate
present, the consumer outlined the disparities in the
information he was given by various staff members and how this had
made him feel.
Having listened to the consumer's concerns the staff
apologised and agreed that in future the hospital would allocate
one of their staff to be the liaison person with the consumer's
support worker for any pre-arranged appointments, and in the event
of any emergency admission, if that person was unavailable another
person would be the single point of contact.
The consumer was very pleased with this outcome because he
had been fearful of a return to hospital.
Go to top
Consumer with learning difficulty gets hospital
liaison person
DHB ~ Right 5 ~ effective information ~ Right 6 ~
fully informed ~ learning difficulty
The consumer, who has a learning difficulty, sought
the advocate's support to write to the DHB to request a meeting
with a doctor and some of the clinical managers. He has frequent
admissions to hospital and every time he was admitted with severe
pain the staff had given him conflicting information. He said he
was told he would be having an x-ray and when that didn't occur he
was told it was due to his not being able to be found on the ward.
At a later stage he was told it was because he had been lost in the
system. He was then told he was to have an ultrasound scan followed
by surgery but no-one had ever discussed a need for surgical
intervention.
He received a response to his letter agreeing to a
meeting with the DHB personnel he had requested to be present. At
the meeting with a support worker and the advocate present,
the consumer outlined the disparities in the information he
was given by various staff members and how this had made him
feel.
Having listened to the consumer's concerns the
staff apologised and agreed that in future the hospital would
allocate one of their staff to be the liaison person with the
consumer's support worker for any pre-arranged appointments, and in
the event of any emergency admission if that person was unavailable
another person would be the single point of contact. The consumer
was very pleased with this outcome because he had been fearful of a
return to hospital.
Dealing with a rough
caregiver
Caregiver ~ Rough handling ~ Right 4 ~ Consistent with
needs
A consumer contacted an advocate because he was upset about the
way a caregiver was treating and speaking to him. He felt the
caregiver was rough, gave terse instructions, rushed through care
and assistance, ignored him when he said he was dizzy and told him
to "stop that silly nonsense". The consumer believed the dizziness
was caused by the speed with which the carer moved him, as he
did not experience dizziness with any of the other
carers.
After hearing the options presented by the advocate the consumer
decided he would like a meeting with the manager. He and his wife
wrote to the manager requesting a meeting with both the manager and
recreation officer. The manager agreed to meet, suggesting it would
be more appropriate for the head nurse to attend instead of the
recreation officer.
Prior to the meeting the advocate and consumer met to discuss
and document the issues the consumer wanted responses for. These
were forwarded to the provider along with information about what
needed to be achieved to resolve the matter for the consumer.
The advocate supported the consumer at the meeting where he said
he no longer wanted to receive care from that particular caregiver.
Although the manager and head nurse acknowledged the consumer's
concerns they were unable to accommodate his request as the
caregiver was part of their regular staff numbers. The consumer
accepted this and asked to speak with the caregiver directly to
raise his concerns and clear the air. The meeting was adjourned for
half an hour while the Manager spoke to the caregiver.
The meeting reconvened with the caregiver present. The consumer
stated he wanted to resolve the matter with her so they could both
move forward. The caregiver appeared distressed, but listened to
and acknowledged his concerns. Each apologised to the other and
decided they could move on together as a result of their
discussion.