Eight care home residents subject to ‘ill-treatment and wilful neglect’

A 99-year-old with dementia was immersed in a scalding hot bath by a female care assistant who had been in “a bad mood”, a jury has heard.

The victim is said to be one of eight elderly residents, three men and five women, who were subjected to ill-treatment and wilful neglect at the former Briarwood Rest Home in Lostock Hall, Preston.

Owner Indrannee Pumbien, 59, was described as “a bully” both with residents and staff who feared challenging her behaviour.

She is said to have force-fed six pensioners, called one “an animal” and presided over a regime which was under-resourced in equipment and staff, Preston Crown Court heard.

When the burns injuries to 99-year-old Margaret Wheatley – said to be inflicted by Niphawan Berry – were discovered it is said that Mrs Pumbien attempted to evade scrutiny by the authorities by suggesting they were caused by an infection.

But jurors were told that an expert in burns treatment said the extensive injuries to Mrs Wheatley’s legs and feet were consistent with contact with hot water, between 46 and 50 degrees Celsius, for up to five minutes.

Mrs Pumbien and her husband, co-owner Meghadeven Pumbien, 64, deny two counts of neglect and one count of ill-treatment.

Mrs Pumbien faces 12 additional charges of ill-treatment , while the couple, of Grosvenor Place, Preston, are also accused of intending to pervert the course of public justice by asking employees to provide false accounts to the police.

Berry, 42, of Christ Church Street, Preston, is charged with one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm and two counts of ill-treatment.

All three defendants deny the offences said to have been committed between April 2013 and June 2014.

Opening the case, Francis McEntee said: “The prosecution say the evidence in this case will reveal the ill-treatment and wilful neglect of the elderly and vulnerable.

“We say it is a case of ill-treatment and neglect of those persons by those specifically entrusted with their care.”

Mr McEntee said a colleague of Berry ran the bath and found it too hot to even put her hand in.

He said there would be some evidence that Berry, who was advised about the heat, was “in something of a bad mood” on the day of her shift.

Following the bath last May, the injuries were brought to the attention of Mrs Pumbien, who went on to initially suggest that they had been caused by an allergic reaction to the slippers she wore.

Mr McEntee said: “When it was suggested that it appeared that a bucket of hot water had been thrown at Mrs Wheatley, Indrannee Pumbien suggested that the injuries looked like cellulitis. That was an explanation that was adopted, the prosecution say, in order to divert attention from conditions and practices at the rest home.”

He said it was the prosecution’s case that Mrs Pumbien and her husband were later overheard in discussion suggesting the resident’s blisters should be burst to make it appear like cellulitis.

He added: “The prosecution case is that the failure to give a proper history has resulted in incorrect diagnosis and mistreatment that resulted in prolonged and unnecessary pain to Margaret Wheatley.”

Mrs Pumbien was also allegedly heard to shout at Mrs Wheatley while treating her on another occasion: “You are an animal, you just want to be treated like an animal.”

She is also said to have force-fed the 99-year-old, along with other residents who either had dementia or were mentally incapacitated.

A visiting community nurse said that, through a rear door window, she saw the defendant angrily grabbing the top of an elderly man’s head and then forcing food into his mouth.

She said she then witnessed her picking up food from the floor and repeating the same action.

The incident was later reported to Social Services, the jury heard.

Mr McEntee went on to say it was the Crown’s case that the home was “ill-equipped” to provide necessary levels of care and support.

He told the jury: “You will hear that a review of equipment and staff training levels identified ‘a high level of risk to both the residents and the staff and a basic lack of understating about safe moving and handling techniques and available equipment’.

“The prosecution’s case is that this failure to provide that which would be regarded as standard equipment provision in a care home was symptomatic of the defendants’ (Pumbiens) wilful neglect of their duty of care to the residents.”

The review found that lifting equipment in the home was “not operational” and the only sling that could be found was contaminated with faeces, the court heard.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2015, All Rights Reserved.