The 61-year-old man, known in the report only as SU, was largely bedbound and paralysed down his left side and required 24-hour care. He died at his home in New Malden in October 2016.
A review into the incident last year found that there was an “inadequate” response by the agencies involved in SU’s care, particularly around fire safety advice.
How so...?
The London Fire Brigade confirmed in the report that SU was at risk of fire because he could not rescue himself and liked to smoke hand-rolled cigarettes and cannabis in bed.
So...where did he get the cannabis? And why did no-one report it to the police?
His carers also used a paraffin-based product on his skin.
The review said that while an NHS report from 2007 warned about a fire hazard with paraffin-based skin products on dressings and clothing, none of the agencies involved in SU’s care were aware of this at the time of the incident.
Jesus!
The report concluded that “while it was SU’s choice to smoke in bed, there should have been an awareness of this risk across agencies.
“Clear information on the risk he was taking should have been relayed to and discussed with him and incorporated in assessment, care and treatment planning. The Adult Social Care and Caremark care plans did not refer to a smoking risk or the need for supervision whilst smoking in bed.
The Mental Health Recovery Support Team records do not refer to a fire risk in the household and the GP surgery had not recognised a fire risk.”
All those expensive 'professionals' and no-one with the common sense of an earthworm...
Well, at least he didn't live to see the present chaos over Brexit ...
ReplyDeleteWriting reports (to shift the blame of course) are seen as more cost-effective than proper training of those at the sharp end of "caring".
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, they probably have common sense but no particular incentive to deploy it. As they used to say in Communist Poland, “standing up or lying down it’s still a złoty an hour”. In a private sector job, exposed to competition, the risk of dismissal, the prospect of performance rewards and supervised by business owners whose ambitions depended on satisfied customers, most of these “professionals” would be fine. My only moral doubt about them is that they chose the public sector to begin with — presumably to avoid those pressures.
ReplyDelete"Well, at least he didn't live to see the present chaos over Brexit ..."
ReplyDeleteSmall mercies!
"...more cost-effective than proper training of those at the sharp end of "caring"."
It must be pretty nearly an art form by now.
"...they probably have common sense but no particular incentive to deploy it."
Their pay should reflect the need to incentivise just that!