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

Health and Disability Commissioner
younger people with high and complex needs is known to be a problem nationally. 39
The need for a more diverse range of drug and alcohol treatment facilities throughout
the country is highlighted in the recent Law Commission report on compulsory
treatment for substance abuse. 40 What concerns me here is the lamentable failure to
acknowledge the difficulty in any way, and respond accordingly. When Ms A’s stated
goal was identified as not viable, no consideration was given to an alternative, even
though Ms K, Dr J, and Oak Park staff had also expressed their concerns about the
unsuitability of her placement in a home caring mostly for older people with
dementia.
219. Over the next three months, there is evidence that Ms A and staff at Oak Park made
multiple attempts to seek further assistance from Taikura Trust. She was eventually
reassessed on 17 June. Shortly after this, Dr U and CADS became involved, and steps
were finally taken to address Ms A’s inappropriate living situation. Taikura Trust
should have responded to the requests and done more, significantly sooner than they
did.
220. The service provided to Ms A throughout this period at this time was not consistent
with NASC standards, it did not reflect the intention outlined by Ms G when she
sought IFP funding approval, it was not supportive of staff at Oak Park, and it was not
fair to Ms A. It was woefully inadequate and a breach of Right 4(1) of the Code.
Documentation
221. Taikura Trust’s records in relation to Ms A are sparse. It would appear that much of
the contact staff had with her, and with other providers, was simply not documented.
Some of the gaps can be filled with reference to the records of other providers,
including Oak Park, Dr J, and particularly CADS.
222. There is very little evidence of communication between Taikura Trust staff regarding
Ms A, but it is not possible to establish the extent to which this was a lack of
communication, or a failure to record it. Either way, this is a problem. Several staff
members were involved in Ms A’s service from Taikura Trust. Their involvement
took place over an extended period of time, it included staff employed directly by
Taikura Trust as well as contracted staff, and different people were responsible for
different aspects of the service.
223. Irrespective of Taikura Trust’s responsibility to ascertain who it should be
communicating with on Ms A’s behalf, it should also have been consulting with Ms
A, to the extent appropriate to her competence. Ms O recalls that for a time, Taikura
Trust received calls daily from Ms A, or Oak Park staff on her behalf. Mr V recalls
39 See, for example, the Social Services Committee report from the Inquiry into the quality of care and
service provision for people with disabilities (September 2008), available at http://www.parliament.nz/
NR/rdonlyres/06259D2F-780B-40A0-9170-005C8C046E72/93089/DBSCH_SCR_4194_6219.pdf
40 http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2010/10/r118_compulsory_treatment_for
_substance_dependence.pdf
38 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.