The Public Prosecution Service (OM) demands a fine of 25,000 euros against a care institution from Veenendaal. The institution is allegedly responsible for the death of their client. The victim lived in the care institution and died during a heatwave. He was left to his fate.
On August 12, 2020, the victim was found dead by his family. The residence of the care institution where he stayed was heavily polluted. The victim had been dead for some time. After the examination, a doctor concluded that it was a natural death and that the care provider could not be blamed. Although the family initially trusted the assessment, the feeling that something went wrong in the care nagged at them. In March 2021, the family therefore decided to file a complaint against the care institution.
Shortcomings
From the subsequent investigation, the OM concluded that the victims death was partly caused by years of structural and essential shortcomings in the organization of care and thus the care for the victim. In 2013, the CIZ determined what care suited the victims care profile. Investigations show that the victim did not receive the care he was supposed to receive according to this care indication for years. It appears that staff were not aware of the victims care indication. The care file of the victim was also not updated during this time, causing the care to remain the same for years. Additionally, it turns out that the medication management and the medication provision to the deceased client were not or insufficiently in order.
Heatwave
However, the story does not stop there. On August 5, 2020, the KNMI announced a heatwave that lasted until August 12. A day later, the National Heat Plan came into effect, in which the RIVM emphasized the risks for people with vulnerable health. Despite the clear signals, the care institution did not act according to a heat protocol during this period. Investigations found that the care institution had no heat protocol. According to the OM, the care institution thereby created a significant risk of overheating and dehydration for its clients, including the victim.
Professional Standard
In the view of the OM, the victims death is a sum of the long-term structural failure of the organization of care and thus the care for the victim. You can expect a care provider to ensure client safety, that the quality of care is in order, and that the professional standard is always the benchmark for medical actions, the public prosecutor begins. The institution has not met these expectations in any way.
“Poor consolation”
In determining the penalty, the OM takes into account the fact that the defendant in this case is not a natural person, but a care institution. Because the care institution is a legal entity, the OM cannot impose a prison or community service sentence, the prosecutor states. However, because the defendant is a legal entity, the OM can demand a fine that is one category higher than what is normally imposed for death by fault. The OM demands a fine of 25,000 euros against the care institution. A poor consolation, the prosecutor knows. No punishment does justice to the suffering of the victims relatives.
The court will issue a ruling on November 10.
