Watson v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Watson v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
The Claimant, represented by Freya Newbery, was a Staff Nurse at Rampton Secure Hospital. She was subjected to a prolonged and violent attack by a mentally disturbed patient on 26 December 2003.The patient, aged 53, suffered from a severe treatment resistant schizo-affective disorder. She had been detained since 1990 under the Mental Health Act 1983. The patient was transferred from Ashworth Hospital on 28 October 2003 having spent virtually an entire decade in seclusion.
The patient had a history of attacking her peers and staff. Her tendency was to attack female staff of an age similar to her daughter’s, whom she had wanted to and had attempted to kill.
Between her admission to Rampton and her attack on the Claimant, the patient had assaulted five members of staff. Save for the initial assault, on the day of her transfer, she had attacked only female members of staff of a similar age to the Claimant.
The trial was on the issue of liability only.
Recorder Beale found the Defendant to be in breach of their duty under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999, the Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000 and their common law duty of care.
The relevant duty was as between employer and employee and not as between doctor and patient (Buck and others v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWCA 1576.) The Defendant was under a duty, in considering whether some precaution should be taken against a foreseeable risk, to weigh, on the one hand, the magnitude of the risk, the likelihood of an accident happening and the possible serious consequences if an accident does happen, and, on the other hand, the difficulty and expense and any other disadvantage of taking the precaution.
It was held that the Defendant failed even to carry out the task of weighing the magnitude of the risk. They fell far short of the care for their staff that they should have taken.
In order to comply with their duty, the Defendants should have prepared a specific Patient-Based Risk Assessment to be reviewed on a regular basis. The Ward Manager ought then to have prepared a Statement of the Control Measures required to overcome the identified risks or to keep such risks to the absolute minimum. The findings should then have been communicated in written instructions to all employees likely to come into contact with the patient.
It was not sufficient for the Defendants to leave to the ‘named nurse’ the dual responsibility of devising a Nursing Care Plan and of writing specific Risk Assessments and Control Measures. In doing so the Defendants created a conflict between the named nurse’s functions of protecting him/herself and his/her colleagues on the one hand and caring for the patient on the other. Further the named nurse did not appear to have received any formal training in this regard.
Emily Gordon Walker
12 King's Bench Walk
For more information about Freya Newbery, please visit her profile page.