Auckland District Health Board Taikura Trust Aranui Home and ...

Health and Disability Commissioner
for a place of safety, that was not the case here as Ms A was in hospital. Moreover,
Taikura Trust had sufficient information from the reports sent with the referral to
know that Ms A’s needs were not straightforward — legally, socially, and in terms of
her health. In addition, she was being placed in a facility that cared primarily for older
people with dementia and, as such, not an obvious fit for someone with Ms A’s needs.
207. Taikura Trust states that the decision to place Ms A at Oak Park was made by ADHB.
I do not accept this. Responsibility for Ms A’s placement at Oak Park lay with
Taikura Trust.
208. Ms S noted in the clinical records that Ms I had suggested Aranui. She had also
confirmed funding approval for a secure rest home, so presumably her intention was
the secure facility owned by Aranui (ie, Oak Park). Ms I does not recall the discussion
with Ms S, but subsequently suggested that Aranui was the only facility Ms A could
be admitted to at that time.
209. The picture that emerges from this, and from the actions taken by ACH staff at this
time as outlined previously, is that as soon as funding for Ms A’s placement was
approved, she was placed at the first, or only, facility that accepted her. While the
realities of finding suitable residential placements in a timely manner are
acknowledged, I would be more understanding if there was some evidence that the
potential risks and difficulties in placing Ms A at Oak Park had been discussed, and
thought given to any action that might be taken to minimise and alleviate these and to
how a more suitable facility might be found for her.
210. There was a lack of reasonable care and skill in the service provided to Ms A by
Taikura Trust at this time and, accordingly a breach of Right 4(1) of the Code.
Assessment and service co-ordination
August–September 2007
211. Taikura Trust advise that when a referral is accepted, its usual process is for a
customer support representative to liaise with the allocated needs assessor and the
client or his or her representative to arrange the assessment. Ms K was contracted by
Taikura Trust to carry out needs assessments, and she was asked to assess Ms A at
Oak Park. She does not recall what information she was provided with prior to the
assessment. There is nothing in the records to indicate she was told Ms A was, or may
be, subject to a personal order. There is no evidence that she was provided with any
specific instructions or guidance in relation to the assessment of Ms A, despite Ms G’s
intention that Ms A should be thoroughly assessed, with mental health service
involvement.
212. When Ms K carried out the assessment, she recorded Oak Park’s clinical co-ordinator,
RN N, as Ms A’s legal representative, and asked Ms N to sign the consent section of
the needs assessment, which she did. It is clear that most of the information provided
for the assessment came from RN N. There is one page at the back of the assessment,
documenting Ms K’s discussion with Ms A. This is signed by Ms A.
36 3 November 2010
Names have been removed (except Auckland DHB, Taikura Trust, Aranui Home and Hospital/Oak
Park Dementia Unit and the expert who advised on this case) to protect privacy. Identifying letters are
assigned in alphabetical order and bear no relationship to the person’s actual name.