Thursday, June 4, 2015

Fylkesmannen: 15-year-old who killed Anna (30) did not sound treatment – Dagbladet.no

(Dagbladet): The 15 year old girl who is accused of killing Anna Kristin Gillebo Backlund (30) on child welfare institution Small units at Vollen in Asker last year, did not get the proper treatment of Vestre Viken health.

It turns County Governor of Oslo and Akershus in a report, said the girl’s defender Cecilie Nakstad Dagbladet.

The county governor also states that in a separate report that psychiatry offer by Small units nor was proper, according Nakstad.



– The treatment has made things worse

– reports show that she did not get the help she’d said the girl’s lawyer told Dagbladet.

– The treatment she has received have probably just made things worse. Wry Developments her has become more unequal, says Nakstad and cites the following example:

– What she needed was a stable arrangement with fixed processors. But after she came into the system she relate to over 150 different people, says Nakstad.

The girl had unequal treatment since she was 12 years old by child and adolescent psychiatry outpatient clinic (BUP) in both Asker and Bærum and by Bjerketun adolescents care center. According Nakstad turn the County determined that treatment by Bjerketun was not contrary to the acceptability requirements, but also that it differs somewhat from good practice.



Unable appealed

Nakstad says it emerges from the two reports that they are final and can not be appealed.

The county governor concluded that the Vestre Viken has broken soundness requirements in Specialized Health Services Act, while they believe psychiatry offer by Small units broke with acceptability requirements of the Health.

Vestre Viken told Dagbladet that they will comment on the matter later today.

– Misconceptions

Day Skådinn, manager at the treatment center Small units (BSE), writes in an e-mail to Dagbladet that the company’s specialist in psychiatry have answered Traveler County Department of Health Department of the that psychiatry offer broke with prudence requirements:

“This mean psychiatrist rests on a misunderstanding of the psychiatrist’s role in the business.

“Of approval authority and the County Department of Social Service Department is determined that the organization shall have responsibilities that go beyond location paragraphs in a child care institution and thus not to perform psychiatric treatment tasks. Doctor function is responsible for life and health of business clients and is tailored to the organization’s mission faced Bufdir and resting on the child protection-related missions. “

” Psychiatrist should observe the client, helping to uncover health needs, healthcare services for the client’s health needs and also assign drugs if it seemed appropriate. This means being coordinator to the public psychiatry within its responsibility and make extensive cooperation with the public specialist services. “

” The business has developed a good scientific basis for understanding and curing mental illness in a child welfare context and in an environment where therapeutic regimen relational trauma-specific care is prominent. Herein lies the psychiatrist guidance function towards employees, writes Skådinn in the email. “



Got rated

Last week, he replied Dagbladet so the criticism from lawyers Nakstad:

” To be the most compliance with regulations in my response I will only cite Bufetat report after the event:

– All evidence shows that the location of BSE was very well prepared. Department manager and his deputy were involved in treatment meetings Bjerketun. Staff from the department’s field trainees on Bjerketun. The youth showed progress, and was in a good performance without serious acting out in 2013 and prior to placement on the department’s field.

– The youth were considered BSE to be in the audience as it is described in the institution plan. Both young people themselves and the child welfare services were concerned that BSE would facilitate further development within the associated with common and normal for an adolescent who was then 14 years. The entire stay there close dialogue with the child welfare service and with written reports weekly.

– Following a serious incident on 19 July 2014 it made a comprehensive security plan, as the police for review, and that they recognize. It was created a resource. “

The 15-year-old girl has been charged with murder under especially aggravating circumstances.



More episodes

She, her young age notwithstanding, been involved in several serious incidents of violence.

Before she came to child welfare institution Small Entities in Asker, she lived under a strict security regime sheltered department at the psychiatric institution Bjerketun in Tanum.

After several escape attempts, she was eventually subject to a regime where she was harassed by three employees each time she was outdoors, Dagbladet wrote earlier.

In the summer of 2014, few months before the murder, the police were called out to Small Devices. When she threatened police with guns. According to audit reports from the County to the employees of Small Units resorting to coercion seven times in acute danger.

15-year-old now sits on the youth unit at Bjørgvin jail, pending trial. 15-year-old admits to having killed 30-year-old, but not that it was a premeditated – ie scheduled – murder.

Child Welfare efforts approved

Fylkesmannen concluded otherwise last year with the Child in Bærum lent her proper follow-up, and neither psychiatry or Small units had given the child welfare service information that indicated that she should have been moved to another location.


Labour Inspectorate has also investigated the incident. They concluded that there are doubts about the deceased had received adequate training, instruction and information on hazards and risks associated with work, Aftenposten wrote last December.

Chief Advisor Day Skådinn at Small units answered Dagbladet questions about this last week by reference to the following in the Labour Inspection final report, where it was called:

– As regards our announced imposition of information and training to ensure the safety of employees assumed the business has documented the existence of mandatory training for new employees. Moreover, the business submitted training plan for 2014 and the business has disclosed that in 2015, implemented several training programs. On this basis, made it not a decision on imposition of information and training to ensure safety, the report said.

Dagbladet comes with more.

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment