A Long Term Care facility in Toronto, Wexford Residence, has been thrust into the media spotlight after the death of a resident this past Wednesday night. I first wrote about it on the RetirmentHomes.com blog in an article titled, Retirement home resident dies after assault- how communities work to protect their residents. Here are the known and pertinent details:
- 72 year-old Peter Ray Brooks, was arrested by police and is being charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault against two fellow residents.
- Joycelyn Dickson, age 72 died of her injuries received in the assault.
- Another 91 year-old female resident also suffered injuries.
The facility:
- A non-profit community started as an outgrowth of the Church of the Christian Brotherhood.
- Doors opened in 1978
- Has 166 resident beds, many of them subsided by the City of Toronto
Background:
- A union staffer representing employees of the facility told the Globe & Mail newspaper that employees had reported that Peter Ray Brooks “was violent.”
- Police said a weapon was seized from the facility, and a cane was seen being removed by police
- Records from the provincial Ministry of Health and Long-term Care showed complaints were lodged against Wexford Residence in 2012, including abusive staff members and the lack of written care plans for residents.
Considerations:
- Will the family of Joycelyn Dickson, or the other injured woman, file a suit against Wexford Residence?
- If employees warned management about Peter Ray Brooks’ violent tendencies, what steps were taken by management?
- What evaluation was done for Peter Ray Brooks upon his moving into Wexford Residence?
- How many other instances of resident-on-resident abuse or bullying have been reported by staff or family members?
- Who at the Wexford Residence is most liable for the death of Joycelyn Dickson and the injury of the other 91 year-old female resident?
- How could this incident impact the Wexford Residence’s ability to offer subsidized beds?
When I read this story, my first thought was “thank goodness I was not the executive director when this happened” and then I begin to wonder . . .
- Were there things the executive director and the rest of the management team could have done to prevent this from happening?
- What are the legal implications for the senior community?
- If you were the executive director and/or marketing director how would you do damage control.
What are your thoughts? Robert Walker is the Brand Manager at RetirementHomes.com, where he specializes in digital marketing for the senior housing industry. He manages a free monthly webinar for senior living professionals. Register HERE.
It depends on the country, and state. However, family members of residents would do well to realize facility policies neither trump nor exclude laws in that state, or province. Any facility manager who is not operating from that basic concept puts the facility at risk for suit.
Thanks for your insightful comment, Bonnie. You are 100% correct that facility policies work only to supplement government regulations, but I agree with you that there may be instances when the policies per se are not the issue, but rather the lack of adherence to those rules. *If* that’s the case in this instance (and it’s not known at this point), I can see the family of those hurt or killed could sue the facility in question for negligence.
Without a more in-depth understanding of the details, it is very difficult to comment on this story. The players in a system do not have the latitude to act quickly. Bed space shortages mean that operators keep residents too long while they wait for a more suitable resource to accept the applicant. The most “hard ot house” are the most difficult to move, since no one wants to take the risk/responsibility. There is a great deal of reluctance to use medications to control behaviours. Support from the medical community is not always available. Using restrictions on movement (ie in a locked room) is discouraged by policy as it has the effect of imprisoning someone and agitating that person even further.
What does the E.D. do? There must be a pro-active case management strategy and additional staffing must be used to monitor and supervise agitated residents, when this is needed. Funders have to allow for this flexibility and “pay up” for this extra expense recognizing, that it is more cost effective and less damaging than the consequences of assaults and sudden deaths.
E.D.’s have to be courageous and make the case for additional funds and supports as the complexity of cases seems to inevitably increase while funding often decreases. “More with less” is death by a thousand cuts and sometimes it results in death by a sudden trauma. It is unacceptable and more resoucres, greater flexibility, a stronger coordinated systemic response is needed.
You can definitely see your expertise in the article you write.
The sector hopes for more passionate writers such as
you who are not afraid to say how they believe.
All the time follow your heart.
Feel free to surf to my web blog lean muscle building diet for men