Suspension and safeguarding

Sovngarde

Asxetos wrote: »

I don't think they necessarily believe the other staff over, rather it's a typical procedure to get suspended after an allegation especially when the it's raised to the safeguarding authority. The allegation has to be investigated as to whether it's true or not, no matter what the employer believes.
Anyways, In my case i cannot see how I could be sacked if the only one injured is me ( who is to protect me btw?). See in this job you restrain hundreds of times/year and there's a variance in the force you use across those restraints. For instance you cannot be smooth and gentle with big lads when you are on the floor with them.

That's what would make me more interested and focused on your employer / provider's policy, procedure, staff training and generally concerned about things more in their direction. Your employer is supposed to protect you which is why I'd be inclined to start with them but it is standard procedure to suspend staff and not a reflection of you and there's very little chance you'll be sacked at the end of it but as I say if you are upfront and totally honest you're more likely to be given a clean bill of health and a lot faster.

There's very little if any chance you will be sacked because of the incident but

Asxetos wrote: »

If I'm not wrong the incident report I saw that day was protecting me describing how I got punched unprovoked. There's no mention of anything related to the allegation.

Did you complete any incident reports, forms or other record to give your own account of what happened?

jonnygee2

Currently the employee is suspended yes, but cannot be classed as 'guilty'

The safeguarding questions generally ask something like 'is there anything which may indicate the applicant may pose a risk to vulnerable adults'. Obviously, it would be pertinent if someone resigned before a safeguarding hearing took place.

It would be incredibly risky and irresponsible for an employer not to declare that fact on a reference for a regulated sector.

What the last 2 posters have said simply is not factually correct.

I think you should check your own facts first, you are advising someone to resign based on completely the wrong information.

References are very different when they are part of safer recruitment because they form a key part of an audit trail which can be used in investigations or enquiries.

Employers are obligated to note anything which may be cause for concern at the time of the reference.

The employer cannot hold a hearing even after an employee has left, and then find them guilty at that!

I'm glad you find this funny. But I don't think you have understood the thread. The disciplinary hearing is irrelevant, it's the outcome of the safeguarding investigation that is important. And unsurprisingly these don't just get stopped when someone resigns (they aren't even about one person in the first place).

Asxetos

I did. A nurse asked me to give a written report of what happened. It was my perspective of what happened which was in accordance (more or less) to the formal incident report written by the person in charge that day (I read the report cause the person in charge came to inform me about the allegation. I remember he said me that the incident report was protecting me)

elsien

Asxetos wrote: »

I don't think they necessarily believe the other staff over, rather it's a typical procedure to get suspended after an allegation especially when the it's raised to the safeguarding authority. The allegation has to be investigated as to whether it's true or not, no matter what the employer believes.
Anyways, In my case i cannot see how I could be sacked if the only one injured is me ( who is to protect me btw?). See in this job you restrain hundreds of times/year and there's a variance in the force you use across those restraints. For instance you cannot be smooth and gentle with big lads when you are on the floor with them.

Playing devil's advocate here, even if the person wasn't injured it is possible you still carried out the restraint inappropriately or incorrectly. And you may not be able to be "smooth and gentle with big lads when you are on the floor with them" but you may still potentially be using excessive and unnecessary force. When discussing the incident taking things forwards you need to be careful about the language that you use. Because it could be taken to be "they're not hurt so what's the problem."
While you are correct that there is a balance of probabilities and one person's word against another, you also need to guard against the "I'm staff and he's a patient so who are they going to believe" mentality. That's not what you said but the implication could still be there. Your attitudes and values are going to count here so make sure you get them right.

Asxetos

they're not hurt so what's the problem."

Well that's not what I ment, god knows how you came to the this conclusion. I'm just saying that things get more tense with big patients who use excessive force themselves. You have to use relatively more force in order to effectively restrain them (always in compliance with the physical restraining training you've received).

elsien

Asxetos wrote: »

Well that's not what I ment, god knows how you came to the this conclusion. I'm just saying that things get more tense with big patients who use excessive force themselves. You have to use relatively more force in order to effectively restrain them (always in compliance with the physical restraining training you've received).

Which is the point I was making. That phrasing sounds much more reasonable and respectful than your previous one - I know you probably said it differently in the first place just because you're on here getting informal advice and not talking to your employer but it matters if you want to give yourself the best chance moving forwards. That was all I was trying to say - be careful that you're not leaving yourself open to be misinterpreted.
I spend part of my working life in a male PICU and I know how difficult some of the patients can be. However there also some staff who are very close to the line when it comes to how restraint is carried out and how patients are spoken to because reflective practice is an alien concept to them so I get to see it from both sides.

Sovngarde

This is throwing out more questions than answers but I do think it warrants some professional help, advice and representation soon as.

I'm curious what started the incident off i.e. what happened when you were punched and whether you were working 1-1 at the time) and how it escalated into so many people becoming involved and then why other staff members including the nurse are reporting and recording an incident to which I'm guessing they probably didn't witness themselves.

Mental Health has long since been a concern in terms of restraint being more routine than last resort and the fact it does place staff at high risk is why providers must ensure full training, supervision and regular review and auditing of working practices to make sure everyone is safe.

Won't keep on with this it's impossible to say without knowing all the ins, outs and back to front but absolutely without fail go get some advice soon as poss just to make sure you have all bases covered, are being fairly represented and so the whole thing can progress and be done with sooner rather than later.

Would love to hear how you get on though come back and update

jonnygee2

This is throwing out more questions than answers but I do think it warrants some professional help, advice and representation soon as.

The OP doesn't need representation at this stage because they are not directly under investigation.

Safeguarding investigations look at loads of things - company policies, training, reporting lines etc as well as individual conduct. People involved in the investigation may be suspended as a precautionary measure, but they are not yet being directly investigated.

It may be they find the training was inadequate. It may be they find the restraint policy needs tightening up or rewording. Or it may be that they decide there was an individual conduct issue, in which case the next step would be to begin a disciplinary hearing against the OP. At that stage they would need representation, but I don't think this is the right time yet.

elsien

Autumn868 wrote: »

*The reality is that a large number of the people in PICU mental-hospitals actually belong in prison, as they are just violent offenders,
but know how to play the system to get themself sectioned and into a cushy secure hospital rather than a cold prison cell,
however they will be returned back to prison once being discharged off the section

Only just read this in the middle of your little diatribe and just wanted to say it is complete cobblers.
And if you genuinely work in a PICU then you are in the wrong job and I seriously hope this gets picked up by your employer sooner rather than later.

Sovngarde

jonnygee2 wrote: »

The OP doesn't need representation at this stage because they are not directly under investigation.

Itt may be that they decide there was an individual conduct issue, in which case the next step would be to begin a disciplinary hearing against the OP. At that stage they would need representation, but I don't think this is the right time yet.

Yes but my reason for recommending getting support and representation is more so it's there, armed and ready to roll if and when needed. Prep and plan in advance you can't go wrong. My concern is more with the employer's seemingly sketchy policy and procedure that allows staff to be suspended without having all this information provided to them, has incident reports completed by other people (may or may not have witnessed what happened) and the OP not even privy to whatever is written.

It sounds as though there will be little to worry about in terms of being sacked or otherwise being tarred and marked but given the crap support given by the employer so far it's wise to be armed with knowledge.