A disciplinary case of life and death

For anyone working in care, being unable to save the life of a vulnerable person you look after can be devastating.

So you can imagine how Angelo, a nurse, felt when he was accused of failing to do enough to save a dying female resident at the care home where he had worked for two years.

The allegation was that he failed to treat her correctly when she suffered a heart attack and later died.

Angelo was suspended from work after colleagues raised concerns about the care he provided.  He was left heartbroken by being blamed for what happened.

When Angelo was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing, he was shocked, confused and scared.

He spoke to a trusted friend about his fear about the disciplinary process, and his pal gave Angelo what he later described as “the best advice ever.”

His mate had previously been supported by us after raising a grievance at his work for being treated unfairly for whistleblowing. The grievance was upheld.

He advised Angelo to contact us, and he did get in touch with our Employee Support Centre.

When Angelo spoke to our trade union representative, who would support him at the disciplinary hearing, he did not originally believe he could actually help him.

Angelo explained that at the fact‑finding meeting, held as part of the disciplinary investigation, he had explained everything, and the decision was still made to take formal disciplinary action against him.

Our trade union representatives are experts and skilled at assessing the most serious cases to identify any evidence or information that can help an employee’s case.

After he reviewed the case, the evidence, and discussed it with Angelo, our trade union representative was happy and confident he could present a strong argument to refute the allegation.

Angelo was facing allegations that amounted to professional misconduct and was warned that, if upheld, the outcome could be dismissal.

While the allegation was expressly clear in this case  - that Angelo failed to provide appropriate care to a resident dying from a heart attack  - our trade union representative identified that there was a crucial bit of evidence missing.

The manager of the home, who was chairing the hearing, was asked by our representative to clarify the cause of death listed on the death certificate. She confirmed, at the time of the hearing, that it was unknown.

Our trade union representative asserted in the strongest possible terms that the allegation should be dismissed because it was based on an assumed cause of death that the employer could not prove.

He pointed out the requirement in employment law for an employer to be expressly clear about any allegation it puts to an employee, and that the allegation was clear, a failure to provide care to a resident dying of a heart attack.

He maintained, however, that if the cause of death had not been medically confirmed, Angelo could not be disciplined for not responding to a medical emergency that had not actually been established.

This was also used to undermine the witness evidence that Angelo failed to provide appropriate care.

The hearing was told that he took the matter extremely seriously and had reflected carefully on the events of that day, the clinical decisions he made and the information that was available to him at the time.

Our trade union representative made clear that Angelo was confident he acted correctly, within his professional competence and in accordance with the patient’s presentation and the clinical picture as it appeared.

It was added that Angelo carried out an appropriate assessment and that at no point did the patient present with the classic signs of a heart attack or report symptoms that would reasonably have led him to suspect one.

Angelo’s sadness at the sad loss of a resident and his recognition of the impact on all of those affected by it was also explained.

Angelo was questioned regarding the case before the hearing was adjourned.

He was informed via letter three days later that the allegation had been dismissed.