This is a nursing needs assessment that we asked to see, as the things we were being told about decisions made from its results we disagreed with.  We complained about it as being incorrectly assessed, factually incorrect and misleading.  There were apologies for some factual mistakes but the response basically was that it was filled in correctly.

We were again completely shocked at the findings noted.


The assessment said “Due to the quantity and frequency of moves from various nursing homes Mrs Dewey has become increasingly dependent on her daughter to make decisions for her” and “although the daughter is supportive to her mother and would like to care for her at home, she does not always take the professionals advice, on what is required for her mother and will try to do things her own way” – “and gain the ability to make her own choices again”.

Our comment:  Please bear in mind the settlement out of court for care Renee received and the apologies made by NHS Commissioning Board for the District Nurses and the apologies for care mum received in William Julien  Courtauld Hospital, Braintree.  These comments show clearly how our family was not listened to when we were speaking up about mum’s care, even when this assessment was carried out the onus was on me, Katie as some controlling daughter as opposed to listening to what I was saying about mum’s care and  her pressure sores taken as being unimportant – and something clearly I should have not spoken up about – and which mum at 90 should have been educated about in order to make her own choices about how and why she got them.  I did not make decisions for my mother, thank God I did not listen to the professionals many times or we truly believe my mother would have died, and my mother’s choice was always to come home and be looked after by me and my husband.  There seems to be no mention of this.  We would go as far as to say we believe this was written in order to blacken my name and serve an agenda.  No-one stopped to look at the real picture.

It says, “a mental capacity assessment is being carried out ….”

Our comment:  The family were not told and they should be informed, the elderly person has a right to have independent representation at such an assessment.

The assessment mentions “confusion” and “disorientation”.

Our comment:  There is no mention of her brain haemmorhage at all as being any reason for confusion or disorientation – only implications that it was the number of care home moves that caused this (we feel trying to blame the family, to offset blame).  We guess that’s why we were paid £28,000 out of court, £1,000 by CECS and £7,800 by Adult Social Care for the care she received.


The assessment said, mum was doubly incontinent.  And a reduced appetite.

Our comment:  she was never doubly incontient when was being cared for in our home when she came out of care.  To avoid someone being deemed doubly incontinent: calls bells need to be answered, answered in a timely manner (and the reasons for waiting a long time should not be “I’m the only one here trained to use the hoist” for example, one has to have a call bell to begin with, or they have to be able to actually reach the call bell.  If elderly folk who cannot hear properly or see properly are not communicated with adequately they will not receive food, they can eat or wish to eat.  Further if someone cannot chew well they should not be given dry sandwiches with fillings they dislike or certainly it will seem they have a reduced appetite.  If they are given supplement drinks that they do not like and the familily’s has advised of this as this has been ascertained previously and the family are not listened to the elderly person will not drink the drink.  Renee had a good apetite and put on 2 stone whilst living with the family out of care.  Families need to be listened to when they point again time and time again that the call bell lead is not long enough and nothing is done, and what food their loved will eat and what they are capable of eating – they need to be risk assessed adequately and competently.

It says “due to pain not been mobilising”.

Our comment: – Something correct!  Who can mobilise with pressure sores down to the bone??  But completely ignoring “why” she has the pain!  This is not recognising any wrongdoing in that she has sustained in the court witness nursing expert’s opinion preventable pressure sores.

It says that she “would refuse therapy as well”.

Our comment:  We were never asked to be present at this therapy despite mum making it clear she wanted us to be, and it was crucial that we were so she could understand what was happening, so she could hear properly etc., we were never told that she was refusing therapy at all, we were not included in the rehabilitation and it was us that agreed for her to try to be helped to walk and be admitted to William Julien Courtauld Hospital.  We made it very clear that mum and we only agreed to this if we were listened to and had input at all times, I promised mum we would, because we knew she had not been communicated with adequately previously and we were not prepared for this to happen again.  We also observed poor communication on this ward to her and ourselves.  Mum was sometimes confused with so many professionals visiting her and wanted us, her family to be there when therapy took place, it was so important and all knew it.  It didn’t happen.  We have full apologies.


The assessment said:  “…  pressure sores healed due to tissue viability input”

Our comment:  Why did she receive this input?  Because they family complained and complained.

The assessment implied throughout that mum’s condition was due to her “numerous care home moves due to personal and family circumstances”!

Our comment: This is not true.  There is absolutely no explanation as to “why” these moves happened – and that is because of adult social care misinformation, neglectful care that she was receiving resulting in pressure sores, and this poor care the family would not accept and should not have to.  This is effectively implying that it is fine for elderly residents to sustain pressure sores down to the bone and family’s shouldn’t be concerned to question it and move their loved one?  Allowing residents to receive pressure sores down to the bone should be a criminal offence.  We naively believed the authorities and subsequent care homes that mum would receive excellent care and mistakes would not happen, they did happen.  We were not prepared to watch this any longer.

QUOTES PAGE 4.     The assessment said “her mobility reduced and so did her general health causing ………….. pressure sores”.

Our comment: This did not cause her pressure sores.  Pressure not being relieved causes pressure sores.  Actually it was the other way around pressure sores “caused” her final loss of mobility and affected her general health.


Final Comment

 We believe assessments are being worded sometimes to suit the agendas of authorities,  and families are not being listened to,  and can be frozen out.

This should not be happening.

We advise you to pull your records under Freedom of Information – and speak up.  Let us know if comments have been written about you please.



Date Experience Happened

Not Supplied