NASHiCS
The Action Group, who provides support to children & adults, has been fined £20,000 after HSE investigated how risks to staff were assessed, in the wake of an attack on an employee by one of its service users.
Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that a female employee of the Action Group was abducted, assaulted, sexually assaulted and raped in 2018 while visiting the home of a male service user to provide support and care.
The group was fined £20,000. Read More
A care provider has been fined £363,000 after it failed to protect people it cared for from sexual assault.
The care company, which cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to failing to protect a woman who was resident at a care home it runs in Nottinghamshire from abuse & improper treatment.
This resulted in her being sexually assaulted.
It also pleaded guilty to exposing the home’s other residents to significant risk of avoidable harm by failing to safeguard them from the risk of abuse.
The company was also ordered to pay £12,441.28 costs to the CQC, which
prosecuted these criminal offences.
The court heard that in December Mark Whitham undertook the installation of the new gas range cooker after damaging the existing gas cooker whilst fitting out a new kitchen.
Over the next 24 hours staff at the care home experienced problems with the operation of the cooker & contacted their usual Gas Safe Registered engineer.
He found a substantial gas leak from the gas supply connection to the cooker.
An investigation by the HSE found that Mr Whitham was not registered with the Gas Safe Register.
He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for each offence, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to undertake 120 hours unpaid work &costs of £2,000
| HSE is consulting on changes to the PPER 1992. We encourage you to draw the attention of your stakeholders and other interested parties to this consultation launching on Monday 19 July 2021 and running for 4 weeks.
The consultation can be accessed via HSE Consultation Hub from this date. The aim of the consultation is to understand the impact on stakeholders and businesses of extending the scope of the employers’ duties under the PPER to workers and not only employees. Why is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) making changes to the regulations?In November 2020, a judgment was handed down in the judicial review action in the High Court brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) against the Secretaries of State for Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department for Work and Pension (DWP), which decided that the government had failed to properly transpose Article 8(4) and 8(5) of EU Directive 89/391/EEC (“the Framework Directive”) and Article 3 of EU Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 (“the Personal Protective Equipment Directive”) into UK law. The Framework Directive sets out the minimum standards for health and safety through a series of general principles, and the Personal Protective Equipment Directive (“PPE Directive”) sets out the minimum health and safety requirements for the use of personal protective equipment in the workplace for workers. The UK implemented the PPE Directive through the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (“PPER”) which places duties on employers to their ‘employees’ in regard to PPE. The High Court found that the PPE Directive required these duties to be extended to ‘limb (b) workers’ and not only ‘employees’. Therefore, HSE is making amendments to the PPER in order to align with the court’s judgment. What does this mean?Employers will have a duty to provide limb (b) workers with the same health and safety protections in respect of PPE as they do currently for employees. Options on how to achieve the extension of the provisions to workers in the legislation will not be presented during the consultation as the key legislative changes are being made to align with the court decision. For any enquiries, please contact ppeconsultation2021@hse.gov.uk
|
The owners of a care home have been fined £140,000 for failing to protect a resident from an attack.
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the victim suffered a serious head injury in 2017, at Bowbridge Court in Newark, Nottinghamshire, when attacked by another resident who had Alzheimer’s.
The CQC, prosecuting, said concerns prior to the attack had not been addressed.
Owners Ideal Care homes were fined and ordered to pay £14,361 costs.
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (EPUFT) has been fined for failing to manage environmental risks within its mental health inpatient wards. .
Court heard that, between 25 Oct. 2004 & 31 Mar. 2015, the Trust failed to effectively manage recognised risks from potential fixed ligature points in its inpatient wards, resulting in mental health patients being exposed to unacceptable & avoidable risk at a time when they were most vulnerable.
Tragically eleven inpatients died during this time-frame whose deaths involved access to fixed ligature points.
The Trust was fined £1,500,000 & to pay costs of £ 86222.23
More Here
A care agency that supports people with mental health issues, its manager and a care home have been fined after an employee was stabbed by one of its residents. Whilst the employee was unaccompanied, the resident crossed the kitchen and stabbed the employee in the right side of her neck.
Options for Supported Living Ltd of St Nicholas House, Old Church Yard, Liverpool, pleaded guilty and was fined £31,000 and to pay £10,000 towards costs.
Fulwood Care Ltd of Ampthill Road, Aigburth, Liverpool pleaded guilty & was fined £14,000 & pay £10,000 towards costs.