Woodlands Medical Centre (21 014 685b)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries General practice 21-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the circumstances surrounding Dr A’s detention under Section 2. The Trust and Council have already investigated the matter and acted to improve their services. It is unlikely an Ombudsmen’s investigation would achieve more.

The Orchard Surgery (21 005 391a)

Statement Not upheld General practice 17-Mar-2022

Summary: We consider Boots UK Limited contributed to delays getting end of life medication to Mrs C before she died. Mr B suffered avoidable distress witnessing his mother in pain before she died. Boots should pay Mr B financial redress to recognise his injustice.

Boots UK Limited (21 005 391c)

Statement Upheld Other 17-Mar-2022

Summary: We consider Boots UK Limited contributed to delays getting end of life medication to Mrs C before she died. Mr B suffered avoidable distress witnessing his mother in pain before she died. Boots should pay Mr B financial redress to recognise his injustice.

Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust (20 012 668a)

Statement Not upheld Other 08-Mar-2022

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Nursing Home, Hospital Trust and Ambulance Trust responded appropriately when a Nursing Home resident became unwell in March 2020. Based on the evidence seen to date, professionals completed appropriate assessments and acted in line with guidance in place at that time. There was fault in the way the Nursing Home handled a relative’s request for copies of records. We have made recommendations to address this.

Atholl House Nursing Home (20 012 668b)

Statement Upheld Care and treatment 08-Mar-2022

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Nursing Home, Hospital Trust and Ambulance Trust responded appropriately when a Nursing Home resident became unwell in March 2020. Based on the evidence seen to date, professionals completed appropriate assessments and acted in line with guidance in place at that time. There was fault in the way the Nursing Home handled a relative’s request for copies of records. We have made recommendations to address this.

West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (20 012 668c)

Statement Not upheld Ambulance services 08-Mar-2022

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Nursing Home, Hospital Trust and Ambulance Trust responded appropriately when a Nursing Home resident became unwell in March 2020. Based on the evidence seen to date, professionals completed appropriate assessments and acted in line with guidance in place at that time. There was fault in the way the Nursing Home handled a relative’s request for copies of records. We have made recommendations to address this.

Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (19 018 519a)

Statement Upheld Mental health services 07-Mar-2022

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

NHS East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519b)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 07-Mar-2022

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

Brighton & Hove Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519c)

Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 07-Mar-2022

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

Northumberland Clinical Commissioning Group (21 005 828a)

Statement Not upheld Other 01-Mar-2022

Summary: A Care Home Association complained about the way the Council and the CCG dealt with its complaint made on behalf of its members. We did not found fault in the way the Council and the CCG considered the complaint from the Association.