Six Pressing Issues when Living in Residential Care

Medications

Families often express concerns that antipsychotic drugs and sedatives are being prescribed to residents with dementia without the knowledge and consent of the substitute decision-maker. Some residents may come into residential care facilities from hospital where they have been prescribed the antipsychotics. In some cases, the apprehension is over the use of these drugs (particularly the “atypical anti-psychotics”), because of health warnings from the manufacturers and Health Canada. These powerful medications come with significant risks, such as falls, bedsores, blood clots and potentially fatal reactions to the drugs. Many residents are on the anti-psychotic drugs without a doctor's diagnosis of psychosis.

The issue is not only use of the drug, but how it interacts with the many other medications that the resident has been prescribed. About 53 percent of seniors in long term care facilities take five or more different drugs on average for their various health conditions.

In many cases, the family or substitute decisionmaker’s concern is the fact that there has been little if any consultation with them about potential risks versus potential benefits. They only learn about medication when they begin to see notable changes in the person’s behaviour (e.g. falls, increased sedation, confusion). Typically there has been no effort to obtain informed consent from the resident (or acquiescence is treated as consent), or from their substitute decision-maker prior to commencing treatment.

In some cases families are effectively told they must consent to the use of the particular medication. If they do not, the resident can no longer stay there, and will be discharged back to family’s care or to another facility. This approach violates basic principles of health care consent. It violates the prohibition of non- retaliation, and it is illegal.

Medication administration is health care treatment and requires informed consent from the resident, or the resident’s substitute decision-maker if incapable. The primary issues are:

a) matters of fact - Is the particular medication appropriate for this individual? and

b) rights or process related matters - Has informed consent been properly obtained in advance of the administration of the medication?

Health care consent is described in Chapter 7 (Consent & Capacity) and Chapter 8 (Substitute Decision-Making).

The pharmacological and geriatric literature is very clear that anti-psychotic medications are often inappropriate for older people, as these medications can have serious side effects and sometimes lead to premature death. If an anti-psychotic medication used to manage behaviours results in restraining or restricting a resident’s movements, it is a restraint. That means its use must be consistent with the Residential Care Regulations and other provincial legislation on the use of restraints.

In 2011, the Ministry of Health carried out a review and found that in a ten year period, anti-psychotic drug use had increased significantly in British Columbia’s residential care facilities. In 2000/1, about one in three residents was being prescribed an anti-psychotic drug; by 2010/11 over one half of all the residents were. The use of anti-psychotic in other Canadian jurisdictions has also been recognized as high and problematic.

In June 2013, the BC Patient Safety and Quality Care Council began the CLeAR initiative. The goal is to reduce the number of seniors in residential care on anti-psychotic medications by 50% across British Columbia by December 31, 2014). It is a province-wide, voluntary initiative.

In 2012, the Ministry of Health developed best practice guidelines to help health care providers respond more appropriately to the behaviours commonly seen in residential care. The guidelines require the staff to:

• focus on a good assessment with this particular resident to determine, for example, what might be causing the behaviour,
• look at risks compared to the benefits of various options,
• try out different kinds of potentially more effective approaches, and less risky interventions, plus
• focus on informed consent prior to treatment.

The guidelines are beginning to be used by some care facilities, but the legal issue of respecting informed consent for medications generally and anti-psychotic medications in particular may continue to be elusive for some time.

Health Care Consent: A Quick Overview

1. Before providing any healthcare treatment, which includes prescribing medication, all health care Operators (physicians, nurses, therapists, dentists, etc.) are required by law to seek and receive valid and voluntary consent from their patient (if the patient is capable).
2. If the patient is not capable, consent must be obtained from their authorized decision maker before providing treatment.
3. Consent must be specific to the treatment being proposed.
4. Legislation also requires health care Operators to fully inform patients (or their authorized decision maker) of the risks and benefits of the treatment they seek.
5. Voluntary, informed, consent from a capable adult must be sought except in particular circumstances.

- A Review of the Use of Antipsychotic Drugs in British Columbia Residential Care Facilities, p. 11

Control Over Visiting

Control over visiting is a legal issue in some residential care facilities that arises in a wide variety of circumstances and situations. In some cases, a person with an enduring power of attorney or representation agreement may try to control access to the resident by others, and will ask the staff to bar or restrict the person or persons from visiting.

The issue of control over visiting also arises when there are disputes or concerns being raised by the family or others about the care being provided in the facility. Families report that after raising concerns, they have encountered situations where they are barred from visiting, temporarily (for a few days or permanently), or their access is controlled (the visit is being “supervised”).

The law and visiting

The care facility is the resident’s home. Arguably, the resident and the Operator may both be considered “occupiers” with rights to control access to the place under the Trespass Act. The resident has a right to control access to his or her room (much like a tenant) and the operator or staff has a broad right to control access to premises.

The resident’s right to visitors is also very clearly identified within the Residential Care Regulations and Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights (“Rights to health, safety and dignity) which states “An adult person in care has the right to the protection and promotion of his or her health, safety and dignity, including a right to … to receive visitors and to communicate with visitors in private.” Sections 57 (1) and (2) of the RCR also underscore the importance of access to the resident, stressing that the Operator

• “must ensure that a parent or representative has reasonable access to a person in care for whom he or she is responsible.”
• “must, to the greatest extent possible while maintaining the health, safety and dignity of all persons in care, ensure that a person in care receives visitors of the person in care's choice at any time."

The resident’s representative is also expressly recognized under the Act to be given reasonable access to the resident. This right to receive visitors of their preference is well recognized as fundamental to the wellbeing of residents. The risk of social isolation, poorer health outcomes as well as undetected mistreatment greatly increases among residents who have few or no social contacts with people they like having around them.

The capability to demonstrate choice in preference for visitors is usually an easy threshold for many residents to make, whether that is deciding to have the person visit that day, or not at all.

What does the right to visitors involve?

At a minimum, the operator’s responsibility to respect the resident’s right to visitors and to privacy includes having a place where the resident can meet people without others around. When the resident does not share a room, that may be easier to achieve.

Control of access by family

As will be noted later in the Chapter on Substitute Decision-Making, sometimes family may try to control access to a resident by asking staff to bar certain individuals. In some cases there can be good safety and security reasons to do so, such as where has been a history of violence or financial exploitation in the community, and there is a realistic risk it may continue.

However it should be noted that a person granted an enduring power of attorney has no authority to make personal care decisions such as who may visit the resident; neither does a person who is a temporary substitute decision-maker for health care decisions. Even a person holding a representation agreement that covers personal care decisions is expected to consult with the resident, follow their values, beliefs, wishes and act in their best interests. They cannot misrepresent information or try to unduly influence the resident about whether certain people should visit the resident. While in many cases, staff can simply ask the resident if the person wants that visitor on this occasion, the best approach becomes more complex for cognitively impaired residents who may or may not recognize the family member or close contact.

Whose right is it?

One of the questions for visiting is whose right is it? – the residents’ right to receive visitors or the family’s and others‘ right to visit the resident? The visits are the resident’s right, but visiting can serve an important purpose for both parties. It helps the resident maintain connection to family, friends and the community, continuing an important part of the person’s life history and sense of self. It also helps family.

The facility’s control of access

Can the facility ever deny access to people? Yes. The facility staff can deny access temporarily if there is a threat by that person visiting to the safety and well being of the resident, other residents or the staff or administration. However, this response has to be proportional to the actual circumstances, and recognizing that some conflict may be expected, especially when long standing issues have not being adequately addressed in the facility.

A 2012 Ministry of Health policy communiqué stresses the need for a balanced response, and sets out the needed steps to achieve that. Specifically the Communiqué notes:

“It is recognized that family members and other visitors may be under considerable stress for a variety of reasons, and that a supportive and compassionate approach will be helpful in reducing anxiety.” The BC Ombudsperson has found that the Ministry of Health and the health authorities have not provided necessary direction to Operators to ensure that the legislated rights of seniors in residential care to receive visitors are respected, and that people were being unfairly restricted. The BC Ombudsperson made recommendations to make the process fairer and more accountable.

Efforts to restrict a visitor obviously will affect that individual, but in many cases, it can also be considered a form of retaliation against the resident. Retaliation against the resident when people are raising complaints or concerns is prohibited under the Regulations.

Mechanisms to restrict some visitors

The Adult Guardianship Act allows health authorities to apply for an interim court order restricting a visitor’s access for up to 90 days. However this can only occur when the health authority has reason to believe that the adult is being abused or neglected by that person, the situation has been investigated by the designated agency (health authority) , and the designated agency has successfully applied to court to put the restriction in place.

The residential care regulations authorize the facility operator to control access to visitors in other specific narrow circumstances. For example, care facility staff can control access to residents for some infectious diseases. Also the operator must restrict or prohibit a person from accessing the resident “as necessary” in order to comply with a court order, e.g. a peace order/ restraining order, or an injunction. Having said that, an operator or the health authority may not use an injunction that a court issued to bar one visitor in one specific situation as implicit or explicit authority to bar other people in other circumstances.

Under the residential care regulations, the Operator is required to record the identity of any individual who the operator has reason to believe may pose a risk to the health, safety or dignity of the person in care. However, there must be a reasonable basis for identifying a person as a risk to the resident. Operators also cannot bar individuals from visiting the resident simply because the Operator or staff members consider them as complainers or “trouble”.

Removal and release of residents

Operators sometimes point out they have a legal responsibility to ensure the resident is not released or removed from the care facility to anyone except the resident’s representative or a person authorized by the representative. Also, they point out that a care plan or “other pre-existing arrangement” can set out who the resident can be released to, or who can remove the resident from the care facility. Both statements are legally accurate, but they can only apply to situations where the resident is not mentally capable of making that decision for herself or himself. A care plan that purported to make those restrictions without the express consent of a mentally capable adult would not be valid.

Can the facility control “visiting hours”?

In some cases a care facility may try to limit access to certain hours, such as a hospital might. The regulations clearly permit visiting “at any time”. This reflects the fact that residents can have different preferences or “good times of the day”, and that family’s ability to visit may be circumscribed by their employment and other responsibilities. In some instances, staff may try to restrict visiting to daytime when there is more staff. In other instances, staff may try to restrict visiting to certain times, because the facility locks its doors at night as safety matter. However, the facility is expected to take an individualized approach to residents’ rights and care planning. Failure to do so may be discriminatory and violate the regulations.

Can the facility control people from visiting others than “your resident”?

Staff or administration in some facilities may try to prevent family from talking with other residents or other people, on the basis they are simply respecting the residents’ privacy. Adults are usually able to identify whether or not they want someone around. Unless there has been a specific complaint raised such as the visitor going into another person’s room without permission, the facility should not interfere with socialization or family members talking with others. Indeed the right and opportunity for families to work together to form a family council or other group for the benefit of residents would be effectively undermined under the guise of respecting privacy.

Abuse and Neglect

The Residential Care Regulation requires an operator (licensee) to immediately report to the medical health officer (Community Licensing) if there is an allegation of abuse or neglect of a resident.

What Do We Mean?

In everyday language, the terms such as “abuse” and “neglect “ or “mistreatment” loosely refer to a wide range of negative behaviours, actions or inactions in residential care by staff, administration or others that can undermine the residents’ dignity, or cause them physical, emotional or financial harm. “Neglect of a resident” as the public often thinks of the term may also refer to substandard care, including poor housekeeping, hygiene concerns, delay of treatment, ignoring or slow response to call bells, lack of help with to the washroom, being forced to use incontinence products, inadequate pain treatment, insufficient staffing, poor nutrition, and residents going without a bath for weeks. It can sometimes take extreme forms as well, e.g. a resident lying in urine and feces for extended periods of time, a resident who is malnourished or who develops pressure ulcers due to lack of appropriate care.

Emotional abuse can show up as the usual forms seen in the community, such as yelling and threatening the person. However, there are special forms that show up in residential care that are either intended to personalize, humiliate or degrade the person, or use power and control over the resident. These forms of emotional abuse include, for example if a staff member, operator or other person working in the facility

• belittles the resident when the person’s clothing or incontinence brief is wet or soiled;
• makes fun of the resident’s mental or physical disability;
• makes racial, cultural or sexual orientation slurs;
• threatens to kick out (“discharge”) the resident if she or he does not “cooperate.”

In the residential care regulations, the terms “abuse” and “neglect“ have very specific meanings. These focus exclusively on harms to “persons in care “ (residents) by people who are “not persons in care“ (staff, administration, volunteers, family, strangers).

The abuse definitions specifically exclude harms by residents to other residents. These resident to resident harms are also considered important care issues and are “reportable” to Licensing; they are simply recognized as having different causes and needing different responses than do abuse or neglect situations.

“Abuse” and “neglect “in residential care generally means a deliberate intention to harm a resident, or a high degree of recklessness or indifference to the resident. Any other harms resulting from lack of understanding, poor procedures or documentation, inadequate training, or inadequate staffing are more commonly characterized as “quality of care” concerns or issues related to “non-compliance with standards”. However, the line between neglect and poor quality of care is not always clear in residential care.

The terms “abuse “ and “neglect “ as used in the Residential Care Regulations are also somewhat different than those used by the Adult Guardianship Act, where the definitions are statutory thresholds for action and focus on deliberate harms causing significant loss. See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Abuse and Neglect Definitions Under the Residential Care Regulations	Abuse and Neglect Definitions under the Adult Guardianship Act
"emotional abuse" means any act, or lack of action, which may diminish the sense of dignity of a person in care, perpetrated by a person not in care, such as verbal harassment, yelling or confinement;	"abuse" means the deliberate mistreatment of an adult that causes the adult (a) physical, mental or emotional harm, or (b) damage or loss in respect of the adult's financial affairs, and includes intimidation, humiliation, physical assault, sexual assault, overmedication, withholding needed medication, censoring mail, invasion or denial of privacy or denial of access to visitors;
"financial abuse" means (a) the misuse of the funds and assets of a person in care by a person not in care, or (b) the obtaining of the property and funds of a person in care by a person not in care without the knowledge and full consent of the person in care or his or her parent or representative;
"neglect" means the failure of a care Operator to meet the needs of a person in care, including food, shelter, care or supervision;	"neglect" means any failure to provide necessary care, assistance, guidance or attention to an adult that causes, or is reasonably likely to cause within a short period of time, the adult serious physical, mental or emotional harm or substantial damage or loss in respect of the adult's financial affairs, and includes self neglect;
"physical abuse" means any physical force that is excessive for, or is inappropriate to, a situation involving a person in care and perpetrated by a person not in care;
"sexual abuse" means any sexual behaviour directed towards a person in care and includes (a) any sexual exploitation, whether consensual or not, by an employee of the licensee, or any other person in a position of trust, power or authority, …,but does not include consenting sexual behaviour between adult persons in care;

This information applies to British Columbia, Canada. Last reviewed for legal accuracy by BC Centre for Elder Advocacy and Support, June 2014.

(1) Agreement, or (2) the giving of permission for a thing to happen or not happen.

In family law, this usually refers to one party obtaining a part of any property at issue before the property has been finally divided by court order or the parties' agreement, usually in order to help pay for that person's legal fees.

An act; a statute; a written law made by a government. See "regulations."

In law, the re-examination of a term of an order or agreement, usually to determine whether the term remains fair and appropriate in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the review. In family law, particularly the review of an order or agreement provided for the payment of spousal support. See "de novo," "family law agreements," "order" and "spousal support."

In law, (1) a judge's conclusions after hearing argument and considering the evidence presented at a trial or an application, (2) a judgment, or (3) the judge's reasons. A judge's written or oral decision will include the judge's conclusions about the relief or remedies claimed as well as their findings of fact and conclusions of law. A written decision is called the judge’s "reasons for judgment." See "common law," "conclusions of law" and "findings of fact."

In contract law, a promise made by someone about a certain state of affairs, like "the plumbing was replaced last year" or "I had a vasectomy two years ago." See "misrepresentation."

Under the old Divorce Act, the schedule of a parent's time with their children under an order or agreement, replaced with "parenting time" and "contact" in the new Divorce Act. Access usually referred to the schedule of the parent with the least amount of time with the child. See "contact," "custody" and "parenting time."

In law, (1) the physical railing separating the public gallery in a courtroom from the area where the judge and lawyers sit, (2) lawyers as a group, or (3) the place where lawyers go after work.

(1) In real property law, a piece of property and a building situated on it, usually including the area of the property surrounding a building on that property. (2) In law generally, a premise is an assumption that founds a logical argument. See "argument" and "real property."

In family law, the natural or adoptive father or mother of a child; may also include stepparents, depending on the circumstances and the applicable legislation; may include the donors of eggs or sperm and surrogate mothers, depending on the circumstances and the terms of any assisted reproduction agreement. See "adoptive parent," "assisted reproduction," "natural parent" and "stepparent."

(1) Intentionally doing a thing, or (2) a law passed by a government, also called "legislation" or a "statute." See "regulations."

Under the Family Law Act, a term that describes the time a person who is not a guardian of a child, including a parent who is not a guardian, has with that child. Under the Divorce Act, a term that describes the time a person who is not a married spouse has with a child. See "guardian" and "parental responsibilities."

The right of a person to bring a particular claim under a particular act before a particular court. In most cases, someone who does not have a direct interest in a dispute will lack standing to be a party in a proceeding.

A mandatory direction of the court that is binding and enforceable upon the parties to a court proceeding. An "interim order" is a temporary order made following the hearing of an interim application. A "final order" is a permanent order, made following the trial of the court proceeding or the parties' settlement, following which the only recourse open to a dissatisfied party is to appeal. Failing to abide by the terms of an order may constitute contempt of court. See "appeal," "consent order," "contempt of court," "decision" and "declaration."

A kind of legislation that provides supplemental rules for a particular act. Regulations are created and amended by the government, not by the legislature, and as a result the legislature has no say in how or what regulations are imposed by government. See "act."

An order which forbids a party from doing or not doing a thing. In family law, common restraining orders include stopping someone from travelling out of an area with the children, stopping someone from disposing of property, and stopping someone from harassing someone else. See "ex parte," "order" and "protection order."

A court order that someone not do or cease doing a thing; a restraining order. In family law, injunctions are often sought, for example, to stop someone from removing the children from a place, from disposing of assets, or from harassing someone. See "application" and "ex parte."

In family law, a legal document in which a person gives up a right or a claim, or the entitlement to enforce a right or advance a claim; a waiver. Releases are usually signed following the settlement of a court proceeding or legal dispute. See "action" and "claim."

A claim that a certain set of facts is true, such as "on Monday, I had soup for lunch" or "Bob drives a blue Camaro." Also called an "allegation of fact" or a "statement of fact."

In law, (1) a written argument, or (2) a memorandum of law. A brief is usually presented to a judge as a summary of an argument or the law on a particular issue. Curiously, briefs are rarely brief.

In law, a legal incapacity to do certain things, like enter into a contract or start a court proceeding. Legal disabilities include insanity and being under the age of majority. See "age of majority."

A court proceeding in which one party sues another for a specific remedy or relief, also called a "lawsuit" or a "case." An action for divorce, for example, is a court proceeding in which the claimant sues the respondent for the relief of a divorce order.

In law, defending a claim by denying the truth of a fact supporting the claim; a rejection of the truth of facts alleged.

Something which can be owned. See "chattels" and "real property."

In law, a form of possession of property in which a "trustee" keeps and manages property for the benefit of another person, the "beneficiary," without owning that property and usually without acquiring an interest in that property other than as payment for their services. The trustee holds the property in trust for the beneficiary. See "constructive trust," "ownership," "possession" and "resulting trust."