\u201cI have spent seven years of feeling completely unvalidated and angry that they never bothered to speak to staff and they took the DHB at their word,\u201d Charlotte told the Herald.<\/p>\n
Correspondence from Hutt Valley DHB to the HDC in 2019, and later obtained by Charlotte, said other staff at the unit had raised concerns about the nurse\u2019s \u201cmaintenance of professional boundaries\u201d in respect to patients. <\/p>\n
In that document, the DHB says it acted on these concerns and information from another patient\u2019s father contributed to a disciplinary process that the DHB undertook in the late 2000s. The letter is heavily redacted but notes the nurse was ultimately dismissed that same year. <\/p>\n
\u201cOn top of the trauma of what happened, the denial from the HDC affected my mental health for years,\u201d Charlotte said. <\/p>\n
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stands alongside minister Erica Stanford as the Government delivers a formal apology to abuse in state and faith-based care survivors. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n
In a statement, the HDC acknowledged Charlotte\u2019s experience<\/a> with the healthcare system would have caused \u201csignificant distress\u201d. The watchdog confirmed the case had been reopened due to new information that had not previously been considered. <\/p>\n \u201cIn line with our usual processes, we cannot comment further on this case while our assessment is ongoing.<\/p>\n \u201cWe acknowledge that (Charlotte) was initially advised we would not be re-opening her complaint, however during a quality assurance process it was identified this decision was made in error. We have apologised directly to (Charlotte) for any distress this caused her.\u201d<\/p>\n Charlotte previously told her story of abuse within the eating disorder unit<\/a> exclusively to the Herald. <\/p>\n \u201cFrom the beginning, the very beginning, there was one nurse who took a special interest. And when you are in that physically vulnerable [space], away from home, that feels, I don\u2019t know, good?<\/p>\n \u201cIt feels warm. That slowly but surely escalated … I would leave [the residence] and stay over at her house, and it slowly, almost without me noticing, it turned sexual.\u201d<\/p>\n She said she was told by the nurse that visits to the nurse\u2019s house were to be kept secret.<\/p>\n The abuse and manipulation by the nurse continued after she was discharged from the unit and went on until the nurse died suddenly some years later, Charlotte said. <\/p>\n \u201cI remember her saying, \u2018We have such a special bond\u2019. She slowly isolated my supporters. [She played] this supportive role but also slightly maternal at the beginning, which added to the mindf*** of when it turned sexual because it was just a weird dynamic.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the time, I felt confused but also supported, which kept me going back.\u201d<\/p>\n Charlotte needed to complain via the HDC, an independent but broad watchdog for the health and disability system, because the Ministry of Health\u2019s formal redress system only applied to cases up to June 30, 1993.<\/p>\n She emailed several ministers trying to raise attention to this system shortfall. When she saw one of the ministers with oversight of that scheme, Erica Stanford, would be at a local event, Charlotte printed one of the many emails she had sent officials and walked up to Stanford and handed it to her.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was scary but at that point I was desperate,\u201d Charlotte told the Herald. <\/p>\n \u201cIt got to the point where I thought \u2018this is never going to get through\u2019, so I printed off my email and personally handed it to her.\u201d<\/p>\n That email explained how the country\u2019s core and formal redress scheme did not cover abuse in state-run mental health facilities after July 1993 and \u201cexcludes an entire generation of survivors like me\u201d.<\/p>\n This gap in the system is because of major health reforms in the 1990s. Liability for abuse that happened in health settings was the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, which had a formal redress system, until 1993, when major reforms dispersed liabilities across a number of organisations, such as the Crown Health Enterprises, which did not have formal redress schemes.<\/p>\n In 2001, liabilities were again dispersed with the establishment of district health boards and further reforms in 2022 led to DHBs being absorbed into the entity known today as Health NZ<\/a>.<\/p>\n None of the organisations formed after 1993 had formal redress schemes to respond to claims of abuse in care and survivors\u2019 only options were to pursue an ad hoc complaint or litigation. Health NZ is liable for claims after 2022. It says there have been 11 claims of alleged abuse in mental health settings since that time.<\/p>\n Stanford said when Charlotte walked up to her at the event, she was \u201cvisibly shaking and trying to hold it together\u201d. The pair talked and organised a further meeting at Stanford\u2019s office.<\/p>\n \u201cIt took an enormous amount of courage for her to come and talk to me about her case. She told me what had happened to her and what she had tried to do to get redress, and the terrible time that she had had and the brick walls that she just kept hitting at every turn to try and get some help and get some redress,\u201d Stanford said.<\/p>\n A few months later, Stanford announced the state redress scheme for abuse in mental health inpatient settings would be expanded to include claims from July 1, 1993, to June 30, 2022, when Health NZ was established. Claims after 2022 would be the responsibility of Health NZ.<\/p>\nCharlotte says the “special attention” from the nurse slowly escalated into abuse. Photo \/ 123RF<\/p>\n
Government Response to Abuse in Care Minister Erica Stanford in her Beehive office. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n