Aged Care Insite Issue 92 | December 2015 - January 2016 | Page 31

workforce to [him], they would not have placed confidence in his claims of professionalism and suitability for this job.” In fact, during Dean’s three-month probationary period, there were several incidents and complaints, some of which were reported to his supervisor. A CCTV camera that was positioned outside the treatment room door revealed that whilst Dean was on his night shift on November 16, 2011, he entered the room on 36 occasions, spending a total of two hours inside it. Missing medication was confirmed on November 17, and police were advised that management “had a suspect”. When Dean became aware he was suspected of taking the missing drugs, he set two fires at the facility in the early morning of his shift on November 17–18, 2011. A judge in his criminal hearing found that Dean did this with the intent to destroy incriminating evidence or create enough chaos to gain access to the treatment room and remove the evidence. In relation to the failure of his employer to adequately check with referees, the coroner stated that, “It is … as a matter of best practice, incumbent on employers to check the bona fides of potential health professional employees by conducting reasonably thorough background checks.” Employers need to exercise an appropriate level of due diligence. On this point, the coroner became instructive: “Not to conduct adequate background checks on new employees may constitute a serious failing on the part of a health service organisation to protect the public interest.” In relation to a health service’s obligations concerning S8 drugs, the coroner stated that as a matter of best practice, employers of staff with access to the drugs should conduct thorough pre-employment background checks. Further, the coroner raised concerns over the efficacy of management practices concerning S8 drugs. A concern of the coroner in this case appears to be the risk that allowing an individual unfettered access can pose. The coroner suggested the facility should have considered requiring that two staff members be Difficulty navigating the Aged Care minefield? Our fully integrated suite of software is compliant with the latest legislation and can help you plot your way through. present for opening the S8 drug cabinet. Finally, the coroner was concerned about staff’s ability to comply with AHPRA mandatory reporting rules for nurses observing colleagues under the influence. He noted “the desirability of nurses and health professionals receiving routine in-house training concerning the potential misuse of drugs by members of their professions, the signs of impairment due to drug misuse or dependency, and the procedures for reporting any concerns”. Management has been put on notice. All staff members have an onerous obligation to protect patients and members of the public. Managers can also become liable for breaches of safety – as individuals and through the actions of their employees. This rather extreme case is a reminder that to vet potential staff in a perfunctory manner is not just poor management but poor risk management. ■ Scott Trueman is a lecturer in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Nutrition at James Cook University. ✓ Stable, reliable and cost effective ✓ Fully backed up with support desk and training ✓ AIM is ‘hands on’ using its own software daily, providing payroll bureau and fully outsourced financial Management Services ✓ Community Care module is CDC compliant ✓ Our clients benefit from our knowledge of the industry and the commitment to develop ongoing practical solutions To find out how AIM can help chart your next course ✆ Call sales 03 9264 8700  AIM ad_APN Insite_185x133_Aug2015.indd 1 Email us [email protected]  Visit us www.aimsoftware.com.au  33/41–49 Norcal Rd Nunawading 3131 11/08/2015 12:19 pm agedcareinsite.com.au 31