E was a hospital patient in Cardiff. Prior to her admission, E had been living in her own home, receiving assistance from a private carer who stayed overnight for two nights of the week. E was found on the floor of her property by the carer and it was later discovered that she had fractured her fibula and tibia. E expressed great concern at the prospect of having the cast on her leg removed. E did not believe that she was on the correct ward and believed that she required more of a neurological input in terms of her health.
On meeting, the IMCA found that E was both coherent and adamant in her sentiment that she would be more appropriately treated on a neurological ward. E felt she has deteriorated since her admission to hospital, detailing her time on the ward as being “bad for her mental health.”
E expressed that one of her main points of concern was she felt there was no consistency in her treatment from ward staff. E said some members of staff would assist her in walking to the toilet, whilst others would use a combination of a hoist and wheelchair. E stated that this inconsistency had resulted in her being non-compliant with medication.
On several occasions, E stated that she did not trust ward staff. E’s mistrust of the staff is likely attributed to an earlier incident in which E fell from the hoist, leaving her shaken and distressed. Staff informed the IMCA that on several occasions E had been due to have an x-ray to determine the appropriateness of removing her leg cast. Staff stated that in each instance E had refused to allow it. On questioning E, the IMCA identified that when the cast had been removed previously, E’s leg had been manipulated into a particularly painful position. Following this incident, E had raised her concerns to medical staff, however such concerns had never been addressed.
E told the IMCA that since her admission to the ward a number of her personal belongings had gone missing. Such items include clothing and a £300 set of dentures. E is restricted and unable to eat certain foods resulting from the fact that she does not have the appropriate dentures.
Following the Part 8 review request by the IMCA, the DoLS was allowed to lapse due to the fact that E’s capacity was called into question by her consultant.
