Latest news with #CodeofHealthandDisabilityServicesConsumers'Rights
NZ Herald
a day ago
- Health
- NZ Herald
Health commissioner finds pattern of demeaning care at Whakatāne rest home
The woman's daughter complained to the commissioner following several complaints to Golden Pond. Her complaints included that Golden Pond staff would speak to her mother disrespectfully and delay or refuse to take her to the toilet. Her complaint included that staff didn't accommodate her mother's hearing and speech problems, ignored her requests for help, failed to recognise she had a urinary tract infection and were slow to react when she had a fall. Aged Care Commissioner Carolyn Cooper said in the report she found Golden Pond failed to provide services in a manner that treated the woman with respect, a breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights. Cooper, however, acknowledged the home and hospital had changed many of its practices since the investigation. The report detailed Golden Pond's apology letter, which said it was sorry for the way the woman was treated and the lack of communication and accountability. The woman was in her 70s and received hospital-level care since her admission in May 2019. She had a history of depression and limited vision and had been diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy, a complex, chronic neurological condition that affects speech, swallowing, eye movements and mobility. Cameras were installed for security purposes and for the woman's daughter to check if her mother had any falls. The woman's daughter became concerned about the care her mother was receiving based on events captured in 23 videos that were supplied to the commission as evidence. She was frequently asking to use the toilet and staff became frustrated. They failed to recognise she had a urinary tract infection. On the morning of her fall, she was left on the ground for 40 minutes before being found. Golden Pond acknowledged there needed to be accountability for the failings in its care, but emphasised in its response to the commission that five years had passed and none of the staff members involved worked at Golden Pond anymore. Cooper's report said three of the videos were particularly concerning, including one where a carer was arguing with the woman while she was on the toilet. 'In my view, this incident demonstrates an appalling disregard for [the woman's] dignity.' In another video, the woman pleaded with staff to use the toilet but was told she should have gone earlier and that her incontinence pad would be sufficient. 'In my opinion, these repeated instances of demeaning conduct by several staff members, particularly in circumstances involving [the woman's] toileting when she was entirely reliant on staff for her cares, amount to a failure to provide services in a manner that respected [her] dignity.' Cooper's report concluded there was evidence of a 'concerning pattern of demeaning and disrespectful treatment' involving six staff members, including two nurses. 'While there is individual accountability for these actions, in my view, the continued widespread and repeated actions by staff at Golden Pond reflect a culture of disrespect and disregard for the dignity of those under Golden Pond's care, for which, ultimately, I hold Golden Pond responsible.' Cooper said Golden Pond had been aware of the woman's daughter's concerns since at least January 2020, and some action was taken. 'However, I consider that the continued inappropriate conduct of staff, over a period of months, indicates a failure by Golden Pond to manage, improve and monitor the situation adequately.' She noted Golden Pond acknowledged in its response that it was too slow to pick up on the stress staff were under and put in strategies to deal with the woman's behaviour. A 2025 Golden Pond audit was complimentary of the service, and Cooper said in the report she commended Golden Pond on the 'significant improvements' it had made since the complaint. However, she still made the recommendation that Golden Pond provide evidence of its most recent staff training and education on elder abuse, respectful communication and conduct, and managing stress and challenging resident behaviours. It had to provide evidence of that training to the commissioner within six months. Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.
Otago Daily Times
14-07-2025
- Health
- Otago Daily Times
Care facility didn't report resident's sexualised behaviour
Warning: This story discusses sexual violence and suicidal ideation. The Health and Disability Commissioner has identified shortcomings at a disability care home, where sexual abuse, violence and self-harm occurred. Deputy Commissioner Rose Wall has found Spectrum Care, a major disability care provider, breached the rights of three residents at one of its homes. The complaints were lodged in 2021 by family members or guardians of the residents. One resident, referred to as Mr D, who was in his 20s at the time, had an intellectual disability and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). The report said he had a history of repeated acts of violence, intimidatory and sexualised behaviour aimed at other residents, and a history of self-harm and suicide attempts. Mr D's father, referred to as Mr C in the report, said he was concerned someone was going to get badly hurt if Spectrum did not step in to safeguard all involved. He said despite complaints to Spectrum the situation was not addressed adequately, and Spectrum had not communicated adequately about incidents involving his son. For example, Mr C said that he was not told when Mr D attempted to commit suicide three times. Mr C does not hold a welfare guardian order for Mr D. The report said Mr D was quite independent and able to communicate his needs clearly, unless highly anxious, and had said he wanted to advocate for himself. A complaint was also made by the family of a man known in the report at Mr A. Mr A was in his 60s at the time, and non-verbal. He had contracted measles as a child and had been diagnosed with developmental delay and an intellectual disability. Mr A's family said the mix of different disabilities and ages in the facility was inappropriate and unsafe. They said Mr D had been physically and sexually violent toward Mr A and others in the facility. Mr A's family said they asked Spectrum to control the situation and safeguard Mr A from Mr D's behaviour, but Spectrum failed to do this. They said staff at the facility had not reported all the incidents, had failed to tell them about incidents, and had not considered any of the incidents urgent, including sexual assault. A third resident, Mr F was in his 20s at the time, and had an intellectual disability, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Mr F's welfare guardian said that he was not getting the 24/7 care he was entitled to, and the guardian had not been told of serious incidents in a timely manner. This included when Mr F was moved to another Spectrum facility. Wall said in her report that Spectrum was in breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights. She said Spectrum did not have an "optimal mix of residents" at the facility, and following a serious incident in April 2021 should have considered relocation of residents a priority. She recommended Spectrum apologise to the complainants, develop a formal whānau communication strategy and a procedure for consumers who were independent, not under any formal orders and didn't want information shared with their family. Spectrum accepted the Deputy Commissioner's recommendations, and had made a number of changes. It said it would now classify each incident of sexualised behaviour as a serious incident, and would complete a serious incident investigation for each. It had also introduced a new feedback system, brought in a new incident management system, and increased training for staff. Where to get help: Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason. Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357. Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends. Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202. Samaritans: 0800 726 666. Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@ What's Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds. Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, and English. Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254. Healthline: 0800 611 116. Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155. OUTLine: 0800 688 5463.
Otago Daily Times
30-06-2025
- Health
- Otago Daily Times
Dentist struck off after piercing woman's cheek
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. 'Total disregard' for patients Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has ordered him to apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. Afterwards Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An 'excessively painful' large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a 'floating piece of tooth'. He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, 'a large piece of tooth came out', where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was 'very disappointed in the whole experience' with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a 'type of mouthguard,' he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. 'I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed,' he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was 'quite insistent' and 'very confrontational'. At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using the airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she 'shot upright and could not breathe,' and it felt like a 'choking sensation', which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was 'well up in her face', she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023.
Otago Daily Times
30-06-2025
- Health
- Otago Daily Times
South Island dentist struck off after piercing woman's cheek
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. 'Total disregard' for patients Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has ordered him to apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. Afterwards Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An 'excessively painful' large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a 'floating piece of tooth'. He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, 'a large piece of tooth came out', where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was 'very disappointed in the whole experience' with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a 'type of mouthguard,' he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. 'I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed,' he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was 'quite insistent' and 'very confrontational'. At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using the airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she 'shot upright and could not breathe,' and it felt like a 'choking sensation', which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was 'well up in her face', she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023.
Scoop
28-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Providers Named After Failing To Meet HDC Recommendations
Decisions 22HDC03019 and 23HDC01424 The Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) has taken the unusual step of naming two providers who have not complied with recommendations made in decisions issued by the HDC. HDC promotes and protects the rights of people using health and disability services, as set out in the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code). Two consumers (Mr A and Mrs B) complained to HDC about services they had received from Nicholas Stoneman and the New Zealand Disability Trust (NZDAT). Mr Stoneman was chairman of the NZDAT at the time. Mr A and Mrs B' complaints raised concerns about poor organizational processes, a lack of policies and procedures, Mr Stoneman and the NZDAT's exploitation and treatment of vulnerable consumers, and their poor engagement with the complaints process. HDC undertook an investigation. In October 2024, Mr Stoneman and NZDAT were found to have breached the Code and not provided Mr A and Mrs B with an appropriate standard of service. In her decision, HDC Deputy Commissioner, Rose Wall, recommended Mr Stoneman provide both complainants with a written apology and comply with a number of other recommendations. Despite repeated follow up from HDC, Mr Stoneman and NZDAT have not complied with any of the recommendations. "In failing to meet any of my recommendations, Mr Stoneman and NZDAT have failed to comply with their legal obligations under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. They have demonstrated a lack of commitment towards improving their practice. "In the circumstances, I consider Mr Stoneman and NZDAT pose a risk to other vulnerable consumers. I have therefore decided to re-issue the decision and name them." Ms Wall said anyone who had received substandard treatment from a practitioner should contact HDC if they wished to submit a complaint.
