The woman was cared for by one provider for more than 20 years before being transferred to another. Photo / 123RF
The woman was cared for by one provider for more than 20 years before being transferred to another. Photo / 123RF
A severely disabled woman had socks taped to her hands by her carers to stop her from putting them into her mouth.
It’s a move that her former carers have now acknowledged was “not the most ideal of options” and one that has been criticised by Deputy Health andDisability Commissioner Rose Hall.
“I consider that restraining her in this way did not preserve her dignity or respect,” Wall said in findings made today after complaints by the woman’s new care provider and family.
Hall’s findings also explored allegations that the woman’s finances had been misused by her carers, and that they’d failed to change her, leaving her soaked in urine.
The woman, who is in her 50s and severely disabled, was transferred from one provider, who had cared for her for the last 25 years, to another in 2023. Neither are named in the findings.
The new provider was concerned that the woman arrived without any medical history paperwork or any other information detailing her care, including specialist appointments or allergy protocols.
Because of this, the new provider said it struggled with the transition as staff lacked understanding of her history and behaviour.
On the day the woman arrived at her new carers, her sleeves were tied together, and her hands were covered with socks, which prompted a complaint to the HDC in February 2023.
In May the same year, the woman’s sister also complained about the care her sister had received, and was concerned about socks being used as hand restraints.
“I did question staff why this had been done and they said it was to keep her hands warm,” part of her complaint read.
“On other occasions I have seen [the woman’s] hands restrained with socks and bound secure with Sellotape.
“These types of restraint were constantly enforced on [her] to stop her from putting her hands in her mouth.”
The disabled woman’s sister also questioned the first care provider’s use of their charge’s bank account, and claimed that she was often left soaked in urine.
“Most times I went to visit my sister, she was soaking wet, and you could smell the urine…The urine would also be soaked through to her clothing,” the woman claimed.
‘Not the most ideal of options’
After the complaint was made, the first provider said it was the first time issues had been raised about the way it handled the woman, who had been in their care for more than two decades.
A spokesperson for the first provider told the HDC that using socks as hand restraints was not something that it endorsed.
“[The woman] has had a longstanding issue with sucking, licking, gnawing, hitting her mouth, and pushing her fist down her mouth to the extent where she would gag and sometimes choke,” the spokesperson said.
The provider also claimed that the woman’s sister had said that she didn’t care how they stopped her from chewing at her hands, and that a GP had recommended they needed to keep her hands dry.
“While not the most ideal of options, any efforts to use socks have been out of a concern for the safety for [the woman] in a manner that best respects freedom to manoeuvre and manipulate her movements as she pleased whilst minimising risk to her around hand hygiene, skin integrity, and swallowing any bandages,” the provider said.
Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Rose Wall. Photo / HDC
The provider also denied any misuse of the woman’s finances, and not changing her incontinence products to leave her soaked in urine.
The provider said the woman was able to use the toilet herself, and would sometimes urinate in her bed overnight, but she was never left sitting in it, as claimed by her sister.
The sister also alleged the woman was left in common areas with another intellectually disabled patient who was constantly masturbating, and she felt this was neither safe nor appropriate.
However, the provider said that it catered for people with complex challenges and some of them lacked the capacity to know their behaviour was inappropriate.
“However, this is something staff are aware of and they have always been vigilant about these behaviours and address them immediately when they arise, in a safe and appropriate manner,” the provider’s response reads.
The Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner found the first provider had breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights by restraining the woman’s hands with socks.
“In my view, this was an inappropriate restraint that did not preserve [the woman’s] dignity, and the perceived need for this type of restraint could have been avoided by seeking specialist behavioural support.”
However, it was only the inappropriate hand restraints that Wall was able to determine were a breach of the woman’s rights, noting in her report that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to explore the claim that the woman was left to sit in her own urine.
As for the claim that the woman’s finances had been misused, Wall said this didn’t appear to be founded and that the provider’s intention had been good and it had been paying out of its own pocket for unfunded personal expenses.
In regard to the claim that the first provider had been slow in handing over its former patient’s medical records, Wall found it had not been as forthcoming as it could have been, and lacked communication with the new provider, though this didn’t constitute a breach of the code.
Wall recommended that the provider apologise for regarding the hand restraints, but as the first provider is no longer providing residential care she did not recommend any extra training in this area.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
