Quadir is currently living on a mental health ward at an NHS Trust due to experiencing mental ill health. Lydia, a POhWER Independent Patient Advocate that regularly visits the NHS Trust, received an email from Qadir’s Responsible Clinician. This included minutes from a Best Interest Meeting stating that Qadir lacks capacity around the decision to receive the Covid Vaccination Booster and that if he refused to receive it then restraints would be used to forcibly inject him with the vaccine.

Lydia responded to the email, questioning why advocacy hadn’t been invited to the Best Interest Meeting and why his Next of Kin had not been consulted. The Responsible Clinician replied to say that Lydia could go to the ward round the following week to discuss this issue, but that they wouldn’t be there, and that their decision would still stand.

Lydia contacted the local IMCA service for advice, and also a local solicitor’s firm as she had concerns that the correct process hadn’t been followed. Lydia’s question was that because this was a physical health medication/vaccine rather than medication for Quadir’s mental health, the care team should have followed a different process. Lydia believed that they should have conducted a mental capacity assessment as opposed to a mental health assessment. Lydia received advice from both parties to confirm that she was correct in her approach.

Lydia sent an email response based on the advice she had been given to the Responsible Clinician and the care team. Lydia also questioned the clinical teams’ understanding of who Qadir’s Next of Kin is as they had contacted his sister when his Next of Kin is in fact his daughter.

The Responsible Clinician responded, after consulting with the hospital GP, and forwarded the email thread to Lydia which stated that whilst the vaccine would be appropriate for Quadir, due to a previous medical condition he did not feel that restraint would be appropriate.

Lydia attended the next ward round meeting where the Responsible Clinician said that the original decision was incorrect and that based on the new Covid variant not being as virulent they do not feel it would be appropriate to administer the vaccine without Qadir’s consent. The Responsible Clinician thanked Lydia for challenging his original decision and told her that they believed she had raised some valid points which led to them re-evaluating their practice and making changes for the future. 

Qadir’s advocate was able to protect his rights to

• not be treated in an inhuman or degrading way
• respect for private and family life
• not be discriminated against in relation to any of his human rights.