(DIR) Home
Emergency guardianship request rejected for 80-year-old Tasmanian
accused of increasing aggression towards aged care residents
(HTM) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
## In short:
An aged care facility has failed to get an emergency guardianship
order for a 80-year-old Tasmanian resident accused of increasingly
aggressive behaviour.
The facility argued the resident required an "assessment and medical
review" of his behaviours, which were deemed to be "at a point where
he was no longer safe to other residents".
## What's next?
Tasmania's Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the situation was
not sufficiently "urgent" to make the guardianship order.
A Tasmanian nursing home caring for an allegedly "increasingly
physically violent" 80-year-old resident has been knocked back by a
tribunal in its bid to **** have a guardian appointed through an
emergency order.
The resident, referred to as UI, is accused of attacking multiple
fellow residents in the facility, including pushing a woman, who "died
from a fracture sustained in the push", according to the aged care
home.
## If you or someone you know needs help:
* 1800 ELDERHELP (1800 353 374)
* 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
* Safe Steps 1800 015 188
* If the person is in immediate physical danger, phone 000
In a decision published by Tasmania's Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (TASCAT), the facility said UI's behaviour was "at a point
where he was no longer safe to other residents".
The tribunal heard UI required an "assessment and medical review" of
his behaviour, but his family would "not consent to assessment, or
acute transfer for investigation and treatment consideration".
The facility told the tribunal it had "attempted on numerous
occasions" to seek consent from [UI's son] for him "to be referred to
be assessed for the Specialist Dementia Care Program (SDCP) needs-
based assessments or Dementia Support Australia's Severe Behaviour
Response Team (SBRT)".
However, it said the last time the son consented to Dementia Support
Australia attending, he "did not allow them to assess beyond initial
review, not consenting to SDCP or SBRT review".
## Son says he was not 'adequately informed'
The man had been assessed a year ago as suitable for assessment and
specialist care at the Roy Fagan Centre.(ABC News: Janek Frankowski)
The tribunal heard UI had been assessed a year ago as suitable for
assessment at the Roy Fagan Centre, which provides specialist care for
elderly persons with mental illness and dementia in Tasmania.
But, the facility said on the day of transfer it was "refused" by UI's
son "on the basis [UI's son] felt he had not been adequately informed
of the reasons for that transfer despite that being discussed with
him".
The facility said multiple complaints had been made by other families
and residents regarding [UI]'s "volatile behaviour", and that there
had been multiple aggressive incidents since the start of the year.
The alleged incidents included grabbing a resident, and shaking and
shouting at them, "[pushing] a resident in the chest forcefully",
grabbing a resident "with his hands around the neck", pushing a
resident "into shrubbery along a walkway" and biting "a contractor
[sic] — dentist".
"The risk of harm to other residents is significant," the facility
told the tribunal.
An advocate for the resident told the tribunal UI trusted his son, and
that "[UI's son] keeps him in good care and supports him through
everything financially, physically and emotionally and he wishes for
[his son] to be the one making decisions for him".
## Tribunal 'not satisfied' emergency guardianship needed
In its decision, TASCAT determined the situation was not sufficiently
"urgent" to justify making the guardianship order.
TASCAT noted evidence had been submitted that UI engaged "in the types
of behaviours described in the request and other documents ... since
January 2022".
They said "not knowing the cause of UI's behaviour" was also not new,
as well as attempts to obtain consent from UI's son for assessments
and reviews.
"In these circumstances [TASCAT is] not satisfied that there are
reasons of urgency of such that an emergency guardian needs to be
appointed", the decision reads.
The request for an emergency guardianship order was dismissed.
Loading...
______________________________________________________________________
Served by Flask-Gopher/2.2.1