Winterbourne View Hospital - Essay Example

Winterbourne View Hospital Introduction Winterbourne View Hospital, which was located South of Gloucestershire, was one private healthcare that provided support and facilities for adults who had learning disabilities, challenging behavior and complex needs, including individuals liable for detention as per the Mental Health Act of 1983. Winterbourne View Hospital was under registration of CQC (Care Quality Commission), and had defined duties of providing rehabilitation, treatment and assessment as per the Health and Social Care Act of 2008 (Kozma, A., Mansell, J. and Beadle-Brown, J. 2009).The parent company of Winterbourne View Hospital was the Teesdale or the Castlebeck Care Ltd. On 12th of May 2011, the South Gloucestershire Council got a forwarded letter, which was addressed to the Castlebeck Ltd. The letter had been originally delivered by means of hand to the Wiltshire County Council. The letter, which consisted of five pages and was undated, came from a certain BBC Panaroma Programme’s producer (Department of Health 2012). It had allegations that some patients at the Winterbourne View Hospital were subjected to abuse, and this included the patients from Wiltshire, who were within the Winterbourne Hospital. Wiltshire County Council, upon the reception of the letter, forwarded it to the South Gloucestershire Council since Winterbourne was within the location of the council. The prime purpose of the forwarded letter to the Castlebeck Ltd was to illustrate defined examples to the company on how the patients were being subjected to systematic mistreatment by the staff. The main concerns of the letter was the staff’s abusive treatment of patients, the staff’s motivation in the utilization of illegal and dangerous methods of restraint, the pointless suffering of Winterbourne’s patients, the care philosophy abused by some members of staff, the practice of water-based method of punishment, and the professional boundaries transgression (Emerson, E., Robertson, J., Hatton, C., Knapp, M., Walsh, P. and Hallam, A. 2005). Therefore, following the Winterbourne case, the Mental Health Act and the Human Rights, in general, have a big part to play. The Mental Health Act of 1983 was subjected to amendment in 2007, and is a law in Wales and England that allows for admission to hospital for individuals experiencing a mental disorder. The admitted individuals are subject to detention and treatment regardless of their consent, either for the purpose of their own safety and health or for protection and safety of other individuals. Individuals can be detained or admitted under various sections of this Mental Health Act, with respect to the circumstances of admission. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act is used upon admission of someone of a patient for assessment basis, section 3 and section 4 for treatment and emergency, respectively (Keywood 2005). The Mental Health Act, all the same allows for individuals to be placed under CTO (Community Treatment Orders), after compulsory treatment of the individual in the hospital. The decision for the detention of patients or putting them under the Community Treatment Orders is largely taken by professionals of mental health and doctors, following their approval to exercise given responsibilities under the Mental Health Act. The Professionals of mental health and doctors are obligated to follow specific procedures outlined in the Mental Health Act (Mansell, J., Ritchie, F. and Dyer, R. 2010). The decision upon detention or admission to the hospital is made by a Magistrates’ Court (in the case of assessment), and mainly by the Crown Court. Treatment, in most cases, can be subjected to patients under Mental Health Act regardless of their agreement. However, despite the subjection by law (the Mental Health Act) of formal patients to compulsory treatment in hospitals, these patients are allowed to enjoy their rights by virtue of being humans, and therefore, their consent sought within the first event. Professionals of mental health should, therefore, take into consideration the wish of the patient in the event of planning for his or her treatment (Kozma et al. 2009). Patients with the capacity or ability to consent, (the ones able to make informed decisions) cannot be subjected to electroconvulsive therapy without their agreement, unless their case is an emergency. The Care Quality Commission, in liaise with the Human Rights Act, has a duty to protect the interests and rights of patients treated and detained with respect to the Mental Health Act. This Commission ensures that the detained patients are properly cared for and that the Mental Health Act is put to correct use. The Care and Quality Commission ensures this is done by monitoring the Mental Health Acts’s use, and by paying visits to hospitals and interrogating the detained patients. In accordance with Human Rights Act and the Care Quality Commission, the detained patients have the following rights (Keywood 2005). Right to life (Article 2). This article assigns a hospital with a duty to protect the rights of detained patients by ensuring that there exists no areas within a patient’s room which could support or lead to a noose, the windows in the patient’s room are secured, the patient is not able to vacate the building, and that the rooms of crisis are located within the lower or ground floor (Mansell et al. 2010). Secondly, the detained patients have a right to prohibition of degrading or inhuman treatment and torture (Article 3). With respect to this right, a situation has to be very serious in order to be viewed as degrading treatment or inhuman. This depends on the circumstance of one’s situation, example health and age. This article applies in a situation where a lot of force is put in use or used in the limitation of a patient’s movement in a malicious way other than protecting or preventing further damage. An example is a case where a patient who is bedridden does not have his or her beddings changed regularly and due to this, they get soiled (Kozma et al. 2009). Thirdly, the right to security and liberty, according to Article 5. This right allows for individuals to move freely as per their will, and not to be locked in some building or room. However, Right to liberty is limited by law in the case of an individual detained on the grounds of mental health. With respect to this right, persons detained in hospitals have the following rights: they can visit a court with a motive of challenging the decision for them to be detained was lawful or not and they are given reasons for their detention in a language that they can understand (Healthcare Commission 2005) Fourthly, right to a fair trial (Article 6). With respect to this article, a hearing is obligated to be bias free, and in a case of Mental Health Tribunal, the hearing should be held privately, and should take place at the soonest practicable time. The detainee is entailted information on the court decision. An example of the Article’s breach is in a case where a patient is given a transfer to a home of psychiatry, and the Local Authority visits a Court of Protection to get an order of keeping he patient there without the patient or family’s consultation (Kozma et al. 2009) Fifthly, right to a family and private life, according to Article 8. This right involves Respect for one’s sexuality, respect to confidentially and private information, with the sharing and storing of this particular Information, and the right to be in control of how information concerning an individual’s privacy is shared. An example accompanying the breach of the right in a case of a mental health patient is when the patient is experiencing detention in a hospital with respect to section 2, and in a situation where the patient’s neighbor calls the hospital to know the progress of the patient, the doctor gives the neighbor information concerning the patient’s diagnosis, treatment and medication (Kozma et al. 2009). Sixthly, freedom of religion, conscience and thought, according to Article 9. This involves the right of not believing in anything, freedom of pone changing beliefs at any given time, and freedom of not being compelled to believing in anything. An example of a breach of this Article is a case whereby a patient is experiencing detention with respect to section 3, and the hospital is not providing the patient with kosher food (Healthcare Commission 2005). Finally, right not to be discriminated against, according to Article 14. This Article protects an individual from being discriminated on religion, language, color, race, sex, political opinion, social or national origin, and disability. Thus, according to the Human Rights Act, the following rights were breached by the Winterbourne View Hospital (Department of Health 2012). Patients at the Winterbourne View Hospital were subjected to various forms of mistreatment by the staff. Firstly, there was an exceeding number of individuals placed in the hospital for treatment and assessment, and these patients experienced an extremely long stay in the hospital. Secondly, the patients within Winterbourne View Hospital were subjected to a care model which was against the published guidance of the government that individuals should access the services and support they are in need of locally, near to friends and family (Keywood 2005). Thirdly, the patients experienced a widespread care of poor quality, planning, inadequate meaningful activities and practices to be involved with during the day, and an excess reliance on the restraining individuals. Also, the staff exercised aggressive, confrontational and disrespectful behaviors towards the patients, delayed in the securing of emergency treatment for patients with lacerations of the arm, and finally exercised harmful practices by corralling patients who were under-occupied in a one sitting room. The staff also had bad attitudes towards the patients. With these among other mistreatments experienced by patients in Winterbourne View Hospital, it is evident that the practices of the care for patients were degrading and inhuman, a violation of the patient’s rights in Article 3. This Article provides that the detained patients have a right to prohibition of degrading or inhuman treatment and torture (Emerson et al. 2005). The patients in Winterbourne Hospital experienced degradation and mistreatment, which was against this Article. Furthermore, it is largely questionable whether the patients’ right to dignity and privacy under Article 8, and the detainee's right to privacy and family was respected. Also, Article 5 and 6 of the human rights of a patient was also breached in Winterbourne View Hospital. This is seen in the detention of 13 patients with respect to the Mental Health Act, in the consideration that some of the patients were unlawfully detained. According to Article 5, a confinement without the consent of capacity to hospitals meant for detaining of patients is a case of deprivation of freedom or liberty. If in a given situation patients were detained through de facto, there may exist a case to answer with respect to false imprisonment or unlawful detention (Mansell et al. 2010). Even in a situation where the patients were subjected to detention in accordance to the Dols, questions would be asked concerning whether that particular detention was within their consent and whether there exists authorization conditions that were interfered with. Finally in addition to offenses exercised against the patients and assault crimes within Winterbourne View Hospital, prosecutions for ill-treatment and neglection of an individual lacking mental capacity should be made under the Mental Act of 2005. With a divergent address to the breaching of human rights of detained patients, there exist various assumptions made in accordance to the detained patients. It has been and is still easier for the staff in a mental hospital to overlook or assume the difference between formal (detained) and informal patients. Blanket assumptions are very easily made that whatever in law that applies to a given patient automatically applies to another. Firstly, some patients do not have the capacity or ability to consent or agree to be taken care of and to be treated. This also includes them deciding whether to be admitted to a hospital. As such, these patients constitute category that is separate to either detained individuals or individuals consenting to their treatment and care. The MCA (Mental Capacity Act), Section 1, gives a statutory capacity presumption for any individual over 16 years. Secondly, The Mental Capacity Act of 2005 does not put into exclusion other disabilities or disorders associated with the mind and related to the using of drugs and alcohol. These disorders, (withdrawal state with respect to delirium or related disorder of psychotic, acute organic and intoxication of mental disorders related to prolonged abuse of alcohol and drugs) remain disorders, mentally, for purposes of the Mental Capacity Act. Also, the Mental Capacity Act does not differentiate between the various mental disorder forms. The Act applies to all types personalities in precisely a similar manner as it deals with other mental illnesses and mental disorders. In a different point of address, the police, and local authorities had a part to play concerning the issues and complaints forwarded from Winterbourne View Hospital (Mackenzie-Davies, K. and Mansell, J. 2007). The police, Local authority, NHS, the Care Quality Commission, the Council and other involved organizations work hand in hand to ensure that adults in need of help and assistance are safe from and free from harm. These personalities and groups of individuals taking care of the adults subjected to care are referred to as the Safeguarding Adults Board. With respect to the Winterbourne View Hospital case, the police and local authorities, upon receiving the news of treatment, took part in the case by investigating with an intention of finding out what actually took place at the Winterbourne View Hospital, with an aim of ensuring that the ill practices never happened again (Healthcare Commission 2005). Nevertheless, the police and local authorities did not conduct enough investigations on the happenings at Winterbourne View Hospital. The involved personnel did not interview each patient and did not come up with the best strategy for dealing with the investigation. This, among other reasons, is why the staff at Winterbourne View Hospital continued to carry out their ill practices. Therefore, upon the practices of ill treatments of patients at Winterbourne View Hospital, it is evident that the Care Quality Commission and Whistleblower failed upon the exercise of their duties (Royal College of Nursing 2006). The Care Quality Commission (CQC) acknowledged the fact that they showed no response to the whistleblower at Winterbourne View Hospital, and that neither the Commission nor the predecessor organizations within their control followed further on statutory notifications outcomes (Keywood 2005). Also, the Care Quality Commission precisely failed to address the need for a registered manager in the Hospital. Further, the Care Quality Commission failed to show response concerning the earlier abuse warnings at the Winterbourne View Hospital. It initially put a blame on the managers of Winterbourne, who, they alleged to have effectively misled them by not informing them about the abusive incidents. However, it emerged later that the managers at Winterbourne had alerted the Care Quality Commission concerning the several claims of the abusing of patients by the staff, dating on February 2008. The allegations were reported to police but led to no convictions (Emerson et al. 2005). The Serious Case Review highlights the actions by the Care Quality Commission, the Council, the police, the NHS, and other involved organizations in addressing and invigilating the issues brought forward at the Winterbourne View Hospital. These personnel are also called the Safeguarding Adults Board. The Board appointed Flynn Margaret to investigate the occurrence at the Winterbourne View Hospital. These group of personnel had an aim of ensuring that the bad occurrence at the Winterbourne View Hospital would not happen again. Upon research done by Flynn Margaret, it was discovered that lots of individuals had been subjected to pain at the hospital (Kozma et al. 2009). Also, some of the patients were obliged to visit the emergency care because of them being hurt by the staff at the hospital. Furthermore, it was discovered that some patients, upon complaining to their friends, families, hospital managers, staff and other professionals concerning being hurt, nobody believed them. The serious case review also establishes that the occurrence at the Winterbourne View Hospital took place because of the violation of the hospital rules by the staff, the employment of untrained personalities in the hospital by Castlebeck, and the lack of proper attention and alarm in the case where patients were being mistreated. Therefore, in respect to these occurrences, a wider legislation or policy may be relevant in the address of the case at Winterbourne View Hospital (Healthcare Commission 2005). With regard to the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, decisions made under this Act must be overlooked with a view to minimizing the undesirable impact of mental disorders, through putting into maximum the wellbeing and safety of patients, both mentally and physically. This promotes their recovery and protects other people from possible harm. Secondly, individuals taking actions without the consent of a patient must attempt possibly to minimize the restrictions that they impose to the liberty of the patient with regard to the intention of which the particular restrictions are exercise (Department of Health 2012). Thirdly individuals taking decisions with respect to the Act are obligated to respect and recognize the various circumstances, needs and values of the patient, including the patient’s form of disability, sexual orientation, age, gender, culture, religion, and race. Therefore, with regard to the Winterbourne View Hospital Case, the staff violated or breached the principles by this Act by assaulting and not recognizing the fact that the individuals dealt with are mentally disabled patients. Also, the management violates the provisions of the Act of not misusing their right to make decisions without consent of the patients (Royal College of Nursing 2006). The management exceedingly fills the hospital with patients, and the patients are witnessed to spend additional days in the mental hospital. Therefore, following the bad treatment of patients at Winterbourne View Hospital, the government and all stakeholders proposed series actions to foster the improvement and care for individuals with mental disability. The unfair and unprofessional practices of the staff at Winterbourne View Hospital and other mental hospitals has reduced with a great percentage due to the government’s responsive actions. Firstly, the government proposed that all the inappropriate placements should be put to an end by 2014, in order for every individual experiencing challenging behavior to receive proper care at the best place. Secondly, the government subjected the CQC to tighten up regulation and inspection of care homes and hospitals for challenged individuals. Thirdly, new guidance has been published on codes of conduct, training standards, code of ethics, and best commissioning practices by different national organizations in 2013. These actions, among others, has put hospital managers in check and has thus fostered the required and expected care of patients in mental hospitals (Mackenzie-Davies et al. 2007). Adult safeguarding processes are robust enough to address Human Rights issues. This is because, in relation to the European Convention of Human Rights, every individual has rights of which some are important in the safeguarding of adults from any kind of abuse. Article 3 has a provision that no individual should be a subject of torture, degrading or inhuman treatment. Treatment of adults, therefore, may be viewed as degrading if the treatment humiliates the adult, showing no respect (Keywood 2005). Article 14 provides that no adult should be subjected to discrimination of any kind. Article 6 provides that every individual should be given an opportunity for fair hearing. Therefore, public authorities and the Safeguarding Adult Board have a duty towards adults who are vulnerable, to take steps for the prevention of ill-treatment. These personalities will be responsible for any harm, being in breach or violation of Article 3, given a situation when they failed in preventing the degrading treatment (Mansell et al. 2010). In conclusion, the Winterbourne View Hospital case is witnessed to having resulted in a number of adult sufferings, with patients being subjected to ill-treatment from the staff and other forms of mal-conducts. Despite the blame game played by different stakeholders such as the CQC, the Castlebeck and the hospital managers, the government finally came up with strategies to reduce or rather put an end to maltreatment of patients in mental hospitals. These strategies have helped reduce the cases of ill-treatment of patients, and has put the various stakeholders like the CQC in check and on toes, therefore resulting in an improvement of the situation at Winterbourne View Hospital. References Read More