Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A BENDIGO disability services provider has defended its decision not to install car safety screens before an incident in which a client with high level autism injured a staff member while travelling in a car.
Golden City Support Services has appealed a $15,000 fine handed down by the Magistrates’ Court for a WorkCover charge of failing to maintain a safe workplace.
The incident occurred on April 19, 2013, when a support worker suffered a sprained shoulder and bursitis while trying to exit the car during a client’s “escalation in behaviour”.
Chief executive officer Ian McLean gave evidence in the Bendigo County Court on Thursday, and was questioned about the organisation’s decision not to install perspex barriers separating the front and back seats of a car used to transport the client.
Three staff members had formally requested the barriers, which were used in another car.
Mr McLean said installing screens would have been counter-productive, as they would remind the client of their behavioural issues each time they entered the car.
He said every time the client got in the car, their behaviour would have been “front and centre”.
“We needed to avoid reinforcing this behaviour,” he said.
Instead, six months later, the organisation decided to use a larger vehicle for transport.
The support worker injured in the incident gave evidence to the court, and said “staff were tired of being slapped and hurt”.
She missed 11 weeks of work after the incident, and required physio twice a week for three months. She has since left Golden City Support Services.
The former worker claimed the client would “lash out” in the car on an almost daily basis when taken on daily trips into the community before the incident.
She described being “belted black and blue”, and having her hair pulled.
“That’s when we started asking for safety screens,” the former said.
“I don’t understand why we had a screen at another location, but not for this client.”
Management discussed the screen idea, the court heard, but were unconvinced of its effectiveness when trialed with another client.
Another support worker, who remains at the organisation and also worked with the client, told the court she doubted the screens would have been effective.
She said if there was an “escalation” while they were in the community, it could be difficult to get the client back into the car.
“I wasn’t in favour of the barrier. I felt it might cause more issues with the behaviour,” the worker said.
“I know from (the client’s) past that it could have brought back bad memories.
“(The client) didn’t like to feel restricted in any way, in the home, in the community.”
She said the client would sometimes use non-verbal forms of communication, like touching a leg, to communicate.
WorkSafe inspectors visited the site after the incident, and requested incident reports between set dates. Seventeen reports were made in relation to the client over a 22-month period.
More than six months after the incident, Golden City Support Services started using a people mover-style vehicle to transport the client.
The support worker said it had been a much better solution.
“(The client) would sit in the back, quite proud,” she said.
“There haven’t been any issues.”
The new arrangement means there is a row of seats between the client and the workers.
WorkCover prosecutors and counsel acting for Golden City Support Services will make their closing remarks on Friday morning.