Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Linda Westrupp
In view of the recent judge's verdict that it is illegal for a carer organisation (i.e. Social Services Dept) to require a service user to be hoisted, and the many cases for compensation by staff who have been permanently disabled by lifting people (and therefore an implied judgement that they shoudl not be required to lift and should be using a hoist) where do employers go from here? It appears that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't! Has anyone any suggestions?
Linda Westrupp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Greg Burgess
Linda
I would say that it is a case of risk assessment for each individual case. A number of things need to be taken into consideration. Is the use of a hoist going to impact on the individuals rehabilititation. Are there any 'safe' techniques which can be used to avoid using a hoist i.e. teaching someone how to get up, glide sheets, banana boards etc. It depends on what is meant by a 'no lifting policy' we would not lift people but we may use other techniques to assist people to move themselves and prevent the use of a hoist. Ultimately if an individual needs to be moved and there is no appropriate method which keeps both clients and workers safe then a hoist has to be used. It is a case of justifying the methods being used. Hope this makes sense.
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Linda Westrupp
Greg
Yes it does make sense and that is what we have always done, however in the recent case a service user who really should have been hoisted refused to be and demanded to be manually lifted, the Social Services Dept invovled refused to lift her manually, she took them to court and the judge said that they could not refuse to lift her if that is what she wanted. How's that for making nonsense of the risk assessment process?
Linda
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Greg Burgess
Linda
I have seen the case in question but do not have it at hand. What was the reason for the Authority to refuse to lift her? What risk assessments had they done? Are they appealing against the decision? I would hope that the judge had some grounds on which to make his decision and not that the person wanted to be lifted so they will be lifted at whatever risk to the employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Ther was an earlier thread on this. See:
You shall manually lift!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Linda Westrupp
The case hinged on Human Rights issues, the Council appealed and the judgement I referred to was the High Court decision. The case was against East Sussex Council. This is why it is causing so many problems, as it is not now possible for a further appeal.
Good eh?
Linda
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
This case was A-v- East Sussex County Council and was a judgment in the High Court. I am still awaiting the transcript of the case but certainly the judge did not 'outlaw' the use of hoists. He said in this case the wishes of the clients were not taken into account and that was the HRA issue which formed the main part of the hearing. He also indicated that a 'no lifting' policy was not acceptable in all cases but that this would hinge on the case involved.
Once the court judgment is available we (as in my company) are providing a free synopsis and will email all those who indicate they would like a copy by emailing me. I have a considerable backlog of requests for information so bear with me if there is a delay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Minty
Could you send me a synopsis as well please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
This case was heard before Munby J on the 18 2 03 in the RCJ London and is still subject to reporting resrictions. I have spoken to the court reporter as well as they business having legal case copyright in this case. The revised transcript should be available late April and I will continue to chase it. We have a number of care home clients who are desperate to have more advice on this area as well as local authorities.
As soon as I have it I will prepare the synopsis in PDF and publish it to all who have written and keep progress posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter J Harvey
Robert,
Would you mind providing me with a copy of your overview please. Appreciate this may be some time.
Peter Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Mains
Greg,
thanks for the link.
Interesting reading but there appears to be some contradictions - at least that is my interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Linda Westrupp
Thanks Greg, that site looks very useful. I do agree that there seem to be some contradictions though. It still seems to be 'watch this space' on this whole issue, I wonder what the judge in the next compensation claim case will do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.