Disappointed spouse

Our experience at Vincent Pallotti Rehabilitation Centre has been extremely concerning and disappointing.

My husband, Johan, suffered a severe stroke and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre because he requires rehabilitation, assistance and appropriate supervision. As his family, we placed our trust in the facility to provide him with safe, dignified and compassionate care.

Unfortunately, our experience has raised serious concerns about patient safety, communication, supervision, transparency and the way Johan is being treated.

Following an incident in which Johan fell, we were initially given information that caused us concern. We subsequently observed swelling to his ankle and injuries/scarring to his knee. As his family, we should not have to discover physical signs of an incident ourselves or repeatedly seek answers about what happened to a vulnerable patient in the facility's care.

We are also extremely concerned about restrictions surrounding Johan being taken outside for fresh air. We have been made aware of discussions that staff have allegedly been instructed not to take him outside and that he should remain in the office area or passage with staff. I personally witnessed Johan sitting in the passage during video calls with me on two occasions.

If there is a legitimate medical or safety reason why a stroke patient cannot be taken outside, that reason should be clearly communicated to the patient and his family and properly documented. A patient should not simply be restricted without an appropriate explanation.

Even more concerning are reports that staff and patients have been discussing instructions allegedly given regarding Johan. This has left us seriously questioning whether he is being treated differently because his family has raised concerns about his care.

Raising legitimate concerns about a loved one's safety and treatment is not misconduct. It is our responsibility as his family.

Johan is a vulnerable stroke patient. He deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, compassion and patience. He deserves appropriate rehabilitation and care, regardless of whether his family raises questions or challenges decisions made regarding his treatment.

We expect the facility to take concerns about patient safety seriously, investigate incidents properly, communicate honestly with families and ensure that patients are not subjected to adverse treatment because their families advocate for them.

We are keeping records of the incidents and communications relating to Johan's care, including dates, observations and available photographic/video evidence.

We are therefore requesting that management take these concerns seriously and provide clear answers regarding:

• The circumstances surrounding Johan's fall and the actions taken afterwards. • Why his family was not provided with clear and consistent information. • The reason for any restriction preventing him from going outside for fresh air. • Who instructed staff regarding Johan's movements and outings. • Whether any formal clinical or safety assessment supports these restrictions. • What measures are being taken to ensure Johan's safety and dignity. • Whether complaints raised by his family have had any influence on how he is treated.

A rehabilitation facility should be a place where families can feel confident that their loved ones are safe.

At this stage, our confidence has been seriously undermined.

We will continue to advocate for Johan and, if necessary, escalate our concerns through the appropriate formal channels. Our priority is simple: Johan's safety, dignity, wellbeing and right to appropriate care.