FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (HR-F045) Updates FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Formal Investigation Report (HR-F045)SECTION 1: INVESTIGATION TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR)Title- Select -MrMrsMissMsMxOtherStaff Member NameStaff_IDOperating Local Authority- Select -HaringeyIslingtonBarnetWaltham ForestCamdenHackneyBrentHarrowRedbridgeNewhamCity of LondonWestminsterTower HamletsBarking and DagenhamHaveringKensington and ChelseaHammersmith and FulhamEalingHillingdonHounslowSouthwarkLambethLewishamGreenwichWandsworthRichmond upon ThamesMertonKingston upon ThamesSuttonBexleyBromleyCroydonOtherI confirm I am entirely independent of the initial complaint/incident and will not chair any subsequent formal disciplinary hearing regarding this matter.- Select -I confirm I am entirely independent of the initial complaint/incident and will not chair any subsequent formal disciplinary hearing regarding this matter.Delay Justification: Did this investigation take longer than 14 days to conclude?- Select -YesNoN/AProvide factual justification for the delay- Select -Awaiting explicit clearance from Police or LADO to proceed internally.Key witness unavailable due to certified sickness or statutory leave.Employee under investigation submitted a Fit Note (signed off sick).Complex digital forensics or external CCTV retrieval required.Statutory delayN/A - Completed within 14 days.Investigating Officer NameDate Investigation CommencedDate Report ConcludedSECTION 2: SUSPENSION, ALTERNATIVES, ALLEGATION & REGULATORY TRIGGERSIs the employee currently suspended?- Select -YesNoN/ASuspension JustificationI confirm suspension is not a knee-jerk reaction. Alternatives (restricted duties, paired working) were formally evaluated but deemed unsafe due to the risk of evidence tampering or severe safeguarding concerns (Refer to HR-F049).Summary of Allegation(s)- Select -Medication (Safe QS4)Safeguarding (Safe QS1)Falsification (Well-led QS1)Boundaries (Caring QS1)Conduct/InsubordinationConfidentiality (UK GDPR)Clinical/Health & SafetyPrimary Policy / Regulatory BreachSafeguarding (Abuse / Neglect)Medication MalpracticeFalsification of Records / DishonestyBreach of Professional Boundaries / Financial IrregularityBreach of Confidentiality / UK GDPRBullying / Harassment of StaffGross InsubordinationHealth & Safety BreachStatutory Notifications & External Referrals TriggeredCQC Statutory NotificationLocal Authority Safeguarding Team (LADO / Adult Safeguarding)Police NotificationDBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) Referral MarkerProfessional Body Referral Marker (e.g., NMC, SWE)None of the aboveSECTION 3: METHODOLOGY, EVIDENCE TRIANGULATION, WITNESS INTERVIEWS & STATEMENTSDigital & Documentary Evidence Collected (Check all reviewed)Digital Care Notes (Nourish / Birdie logs)Call Monitoring / GPS Log-in DataeMAR or physical MAR chartsEmployee Rota / TimesheetsPrevious Training Records & Competency Sign-offs (HR-F022)CCTV / Telephony logs (If applicable)Service User Care Plan & Risk AssessmentsSummary of Documentary Findings- Select -Digital/Documentary evidence unequivocally confirms the allegation (e.g., GPS proves employee was not at the property).eMAR/MAR charts or Care Notes show clear discrepancies substantiating the error/falsification.Documentary evidence contradicts the allegation, actively exonerating the employee.Digital evidence is inconclusive or unavailable; heavy reliance on witness testimony required.Audits reveal systemic failures (e.g., scheduling errors) rather than isolated employee misconduct.Witness 1 (Name / Role)Summary of Evidence- Select -Completely corroborates the allegation with firsthand observation.Partially corroborates the allegation (observed the aftermath or partial event).Directly contradicts the allegation (provides an alibi or alternative factual account).Was present at the location but did not observe the specific incident.Provided hearsay evidence only (did not witness the event firsthand).Witness 2 (Name / Role)Summary of Evidence- Select -Completely corroborates the allegation with firsthand observation.Partially corroborates the allegation (observed the aftermath or partial event).Directly contradicts the allegation (provides an alibi or alternative factual account).Was present at the location but did not observe the specific incident.Provided hearsay evidence only (did not witness the event firsthand).Service User / Family Involvement: Was the service user or their family interviewed?- Select -YesNoN/AState reason- Select -Service User lacks the mental capacity to participate in an investigation (MCA 2005).Explicit instruction received from Police/LADO not to alert or interview the family/Service User.Family declined to participate or were unavailable.Deemed clinically unsafe or highly distressing to interview the Service User.Not relevant to this specific internal allegation (e.g., staff-on-staff dispute at the office).Date Investigation CommencedDate Report ConcludedSECTION 4: INVESTIGATION MEETING, FINDINGS OF FACT & RECOMMENDATIONDate of Investigation MeetingAccompaniment: While there is no statutory right to accompaniment at an investigatory meeting, was the employee permitted to be accompanied by a Trade Union rep or colleague in line with company policy?- Select -YesNo - Employee DeclinedNo - Representative Unavailable and meeting proceededEmployee's Response to Allegations- Select -Admits the allegation in full.Admits partial fault but disputes specific details or severity.Denies the allegation completely.States an inability to recall the event.Refused to comment / answered "No comment" to all questions.Employee's Proposed Mitigation / Root Cause- Select -Cites a lack of specific training, induction, or unclear policies.Cites extreme fatigue, rushing, or poor rota management (e.g., call-clipping).Cites personal/health issues impacting judgment (e.g., severe stress, bereavement, illness).Cites miscommunication, faulty equipment, or technological failure (e.g., app crash, broken hoist).No mitigation offered / completely denies the event occurred.Allegation 1- Select -Safeguarding (Abuse / Neglect)Medication MalpracticeFalsification of Records / DishonestyBreach of Professional Boundaries / Financial IrregularityBreach of Confidentiality / UK GDPRBullying / Harassment of StaffGross InsubordinationHealth & Safety BreachFinding- Select -SubstantiatedUnsubstantiatedInconclusiveRationale- Select -Documentary/digital evidence irrefutably proves the event occurred.Multiple credible, corroborating witness statements prove the event occurred.Employee formally admitted to the conduct during the investigation meeting.Evidence is contradictory, hearsay-based, or lacks sufficient weight (Unsubstantiated).Evidence definitively proves the event did NOT occur as alleged (Unsubstantiated).Systemic Failures Identified: Did this investigation uncover any Mutima Care system failures that contributed to the incident?- Select -NoneRota FailureTraining FailureEquipment FailureCommunication FailureDuty of Candour Assessment (Regulation 20): Has this investigation substantiated that a Service User suffered a 'Notifiable Safety Incident' (moderate harm or above) requiring a formal apology and Duty of Candour letter?- Select -Yes - Trigger Candour ProtocolNoN/ARecommended Action- Select -No Further ActionInformal ActionProceed to Formal Disciplinary HearingRefer to Police / Safeguarding AuthorityInvestigating Officer Declaration- Select -I confirm this investigation was conducted objectively, fairly, and without prejudice. The findings detailed above are based strictly on the evidence collected on the balance of probabilities.Investigating Officer NameSECTION 5: REGISTERED MANAGER REVIEW & PROCEEDING ACTIONDecision on Recommendation- Select -Agree with Recommendation - Proceed to Hearing.Agree with Recommendation - Close Case / Informal Action.Disagree with Recommendation (State rationale below).Manager's Rationale / Next Steps- Select -Accepted - HR to schedule Formal Disciplinary Hearing within 5 working days (send invite letter).Accepted - Care Coordinator to arrange immediate retraining and issue HR-F044 Informal Warning.Accepted - Case closed; no case to answer; employee reintegration protocol initiated.Rejected - Further investigation/evidence gathering required before a decision can be made.Suspended Process - Awaiting the outcome of an external Police/LADO investigation.Duty of Candour Assessment (Regulation 20): Has this investigation substantiated that a Service User suffered a 'Notifiable Safety Incident' (moderate harm or above) requiring a formal apology and Duty of Candour letter?- Select -Yes - Trigger Candour ProtocolNoN/ARegistered Manager / HR Director NameDateNext Review Date:SUBMIT FORM
