Instructions: Students must answer Part 1 and Part 2
Part 1 Thomas is a nurse in Old Age Care (OAC), a public nursing home. He was supplied to OAC through Compassion Nursing Agency a week ago. On his first day, Thomas was invited to attend his induction meeting. This meeting consisted of him receiving the staff handbook and signing that he had received it. Thomas was instructed that he was to work on The Florence Ward, which had twelve long-term residents with dementia. His primary duty was to administer medication in the afternoon and evenings and the general care of the patients. The first week that Thomas was working he noticed that on occasion when he came into work in the morning, medication was left beside some of the patients’ beds and that there was no supervised administration of the medication. He also became concerned when he noticed bruising on the upper arms of three of the patients. He had seen a colleague, Ann, pulling some of the patients out of their beds one day when she was dressing them, but he did not approach her as they had previously been in a relationship that had ended on bad terms. That Friday, when Thomas was leaving work, he tried to speak to his line manager, Claire, to explain to her some of the concerns that he had, however, he was told that she was at an offsite meeting and that he could speak to her the following week. Thomas proceeded to leave work and when he was on his way home, he noticed that Claire, Ann, and two other colleagues who had left work earlier that afternoon were in a bar drinking. When Thomas returned to workon Monday morning, he was told that he was being moved to another ward and that his primary duty was to collect and clean the bedpans of all patients. Thomas was very unhappy that his role had changed. Part 1: With reference to relevant case law and the statutory provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, advise Thomas to whom he can raise his concerns, and the associated legal tests with each disclosure channel. Part 2 Thomas raised his concerns with Claire that day and she told him that she would look into them and get back to him. Six weeks later Claire told Thomas that she had investigated the issues he had raised but had identified no wrongdoing and that the matter was now closed. Thomas was astounded that the matter was closed, as he had not been interviewed as part of the investigation. Since Thomas raised his concerns, he has noticed that Claire and Ann are absent from work everyFriday afternoonand on his way home he has sometimes seen them in the bar that he passes. He has also noticed that there is a man drinking with them and he always sits beside Ann. He is annoyed and hurt that Ann seems to be in a new relationship. He is still working in the ward collecting and cleaning bedpans but when he is on his rounds, he notices that medication is often on the bedside lockers of a number of patients. Thomas decided to escalate his concerns, as he is dissatisfied with Claire’s response to them. He approaches the prescribed person in order to make his disclosures. Two weeks after raising his concerns with the prescribed person, Thomas was reading an article in the Sunday Examiner about low standards of care in a crèche. Thomas decided to contact the journalist working for the Sunday Examiner to tell them about his concerns with OAC. The Sunday Examiner published an article on OAC and included a statement from Thomas, although it was not attributed to him. The following statement was included in the article: An insider, a male nurse who started working with OAC ten weeks ago, told the Sunday Examiner that ‘As soon as I started working with OAC I became concerned about the standard of care for the patients there. I constantly saw that medication was left beside dementia patients’ beds and there was never any supervised administration of the medication. There was also bruising on some of the patients, and I saw another nurse pulling some of the patients out of their beds one day when she was dressing them. I told OAC what I had seen but they never investigated anything that I told them, especially that there was a nurse physically abusing the patients. Not only that, I saw my boss and other members of staff out drinking when they were being paid to work. This just isn’t right.’ When Tomas arrived at work the day after the article was published, Claire called Thomas into her office and told Thomas ‘You have broken your confidentiality agreement with OAC. Your services are no longer required by us. Please collect your belongings and leave the premises immediately.’ A few days later, Compassion Nursing Agency received a letter from OAC informing them that their agreement to provide nursing staff to OAC was terminated. Part 2: With reference to relevant case law and the statutory provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, advise Thomas and Compassion Nursing Agency as to the legal remedies available to them. Points to note Your answer must demonstrate significant awareness and understanding of the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 and relevant case law. I expect generally to see the following in a good answer: • An accurate understanding and knowledge of relevant law • Clarity and precision in explanations • Reference to relevant cases and legislation • Relevance of response to the question • Sufficient depth of analysis • Appropriate application of the law to problems in question In answering your question, remember that a good answer to a problem question should include the following: - Issue: What are the main issues in this situation? What is the dispute between the parties, and which are the legal issues on which that dispute will turn? Remember, part of your job in a problem question is to identify which are the difficult or controversial issues, and to focus on these, rather than wasting too much time on matters that are either of limited relevance or are straightforward and so do not require significant analysis. - Law/Rule: What are the legal rules and principles that are relevant to the issue or issues identified? State the relevant principles as clearly as possible, identifying any points where the law is uncertain or ambiguous. You should also clearly indicate the authorities (cases, statutes) supporting the relevant rules and principles. - Application: How do these rules and principles apply to this case? Which facts are most relevant, and how? Are there particular facts that make particular precedents more relevant? How? To what extent do these precedents support one or another conclusion? Can they be distinguished in this particular case? If there is more than one way that the facts might be analysed, explain these, and indicate which approach seems more convincing, and why. - Conclusion: How, based on your analysis, is this case likely to be resolved? Which party can expect to win if the dispute goes to court, and what remedy might they expect to obtain? Are there particular steps that the law suggests the parties should take at this stage?