|
|
 |
| |
Carer loses appeal after slap claim
Union concerns over dismissal
A CARE assistant with a perfect 33-year work record at University College London Hospital has lost an employment appeal after being accused of slapping a patient.
The assistant, who does not want to be named, was working at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen Square.
But her previously perfect work record, held since she started at the hospital in 1973, was ruined on a night shift in March 2005.
According to an incident report, a patient suffering from Parkinson’s Disease kicked her twice in the chest, prompting the care assistant to “tap” her on the leg.
Unison branch secretary Mike Molloy, who represented the worker, said there were a number of worrying factors which led to the dismissal. He said: “Her English is poor and she filled out an incident report at the end of her shift. She said she ‘tapped’ the patient, but had written ‘slapped’.”
He added that in her 33 years at the hospital, she had never received any training on how to deal with aggressive or confused patients, and that one of the witnesses, a senior ward manager, was also part of the team who made the decision – a dangerous conflict of interest, Mr Molloy claimed.
Mr Molloy also said the patient in question did not complain. Instead, another patient saw the incident and made a complaint, prompting a long disciplinary process that ended last week when the hospital dismissed the care assistant’s appeal and sacked her for misconduct.
Mr Molloy added: “I worry that the hospital is acting too quickly to dismiss people. This worker had provided a great service to the NHS and she was not given a warning – simply sacked.”
A UCLH spokesman said: “The decision to dismiss the person in question was an extremely difficult one. But after examining her case we believe it was justified as her actions amounted to gross professional misconduct.
“All aspects were taken into consideration when making our decision, including witness statements. We are confident that, in the light of the evidence received, the appropriate judgement was reached.
“Our determination to be fair, objective and open-minded in disciplinary cases involving staff is as great as ever.” |
| |
|
|
|
