NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

P-002770 · Statement · Decision date: 28 July 2024 · View South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust scorecard
Complaint (AI summary)
Mr N complained the Trust did not honour an agreed outcome for two appointments (psychiatrist, psychologist) and handled his complaint poorly, impacting his mental health.
Outcome (AI summary)
Closed. A failing was identified regarding Mr N's preferences for the psychologist's appointment not being documented, for which the Trust agreed to apologise.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Mr N complains that the Trust did not honour an agreed outcome of a local resolution meeting. The Trust agreed to arrange two appointments for Mr N, one with a psychiatrist, and one with a psychologist. Mr N complains the first was not out of area as agreed, and the second did not occur.

4. Mr N complains about the way the Trust has handled his complaint. He tells us the response was sent to his advocate but not to him and was then shared with him just before Christmas.

5. Mr N tells us that this has had a detrimental impact on his mental health to the point where he attempted suicide.

6. Mr N would like an explanation and acknowledgement of failings, and financial compensation.

Background

7. Mr N made a complaint to the Trust in February 2019. As a result of this complaint the Trust offered a local resolution meeting on 20 February 2020. The outcome of this meeting was the Trust offered two out of area appointments. One with a psychiatrist, the second with a psychologist.

8. Mr N tells us it was important for him to have his appointments out of area as he did not want his previous appointments to influence the outcome of this appointment.

9. Mr N attended the first appointment with the psychiatrist which was in June 2020, however it was in Halifax and so not out of area.

10. Mr N tells us the psychiatrist was not prepared to listen to him and he received a scathing letter which said there was no point in him being seen by the psychologist. The Trust then cancelled the appointment with the psychologist.

Findings

First appointment was not out of area

14. Mr N complains that the appointments agreed at the local resolution meeting (LRM) were not conducted out of area. Mr N tells us it was important to him that these were out of area as he did not want the outcome to be influenced by his previous appointments.

15. The Trust has said due to the lockdown restrictions at the time it was no longer able to facilitate face to face appointments for some services. As it was aware Mr N had expressed a strong preference not to be seen by any consultant who had reviewed his needs previously, it ensured he had a face to face appointment with a new consultant who had recently joined the Trust.

16. In a previous complaint the Trust apologised it had not given Mr N correct information regarding the need for a GP referral for an Individual Funding Request (IFR) for an out of area appointment. The Trust decided to offer an appointment with the new consultant as they could offer an impartial and independent medical opinion on Mr N’s needs without requiring the IFR.

17. Our Complaint Standards state that organisations should actively listen and demonstrate a clear understanding of the main issues for the complainant and the outcomes sought. The standards also state that organisations should look for ways to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity.

18. We consider the Trust’s offer of an appointment with a new consultant to be in line with these standards. It has worked within the limitations at the time to best address Mr N’s concerns about a biased view of his care without causing further distress or delays at this time.

19. We have not seen an indication of a failing in the decision to offer this appointment.

Second appointment not offered

20. Mr N complains the psychologist appointment agreed at the LRM was not offered as promised.

21. The Trust has said psychological therapy services were unable to offer face to face appointments due to the lockdown restrictions but were offering telephone appointments. As Mr N is not reachable by telephone it was unable to offer an appointment.

22. The Trust has also said that it would have facilitated an appointment if the psychiatric consultant recommended it. Following the psychiatric appointment psychological therapy was not recommended as a treatment option so an appointment was not offered.

23. The records show that the psychiatric consultant felt it was difficult to see how further psychological therapy would be of benefit to Mr N. They noted Mr N had been offered therapy previously and this had not been shown to have a positive impact on Mr N’s symptoms.

24. The consultant was also of the opinion Mr N would not be willing to engage in any form of intervention that has the objective of changing or reducing his beliefs and behaviour.

25. We can see in the records the consultant provided a clear rationale for why they did not feel Mr N should be offered an appointment with a psychologist. However, there is no record of the consultant discussing the option of psychological therapy with Mr N. There is no record of Mr N’s opinion on whether psychological therapy could be helpful as part of his ongoing treatment.

26. GMC guidance says clinicians must listen to patients and take account of their views. It also says patients must be given the information they want or need in a way they understand. Clinicians must work in partnership with patients, sharing information they need to make decisions about their care.

27. The NHS constitution says patients have the right to receive care and treatment that is appropriate to them, meets their needs and reflects their preferences.

28. We have not seen evidence that Mr N’s point of view about his treatment options was taken into consideration. This is not in line with the GMC. While we cannot say for certain that Mr N would have accepted the offer of an appointment, it is likely this is the case as he had previously agreed to the appointment at the LRM. We also cannot say whether the appointment would have changed the outcome for Mr N.

29. The Trust’s decision not to offer the psychology appointment following Mr N’s medical assessment was not made in line with guidance. We consider that this is an indication of a failing.

30. We have asked the Trust to write to Mr N to acknowledge this failing and apologise for it and the impact it had on Mr N. The Trust has agreed to do so. We consider this is a sufficient remedy for not offering Mr N the second appointment. Our NHS Complaint Standards say an organisation should recognise the impact what happened had on a complainant and look to provide a remedy to address that impact.

31. We understand the Mr Bardney has found this experience very distressing. We consider that an apology and an acknowledgement of what went wrong from the Trust, is sufficient to remedy this issue and in line with our NHS Complaint Standards.

Complaint handling

32. Mr N complains that the Trust did not send the response directly to him, but to his advocate. As a result, he did not receive the letter until 23 December 2020. Mr N complains that he was isolated over the Christmas period and receiving the response at this time added to his distress.

33. The Trust has declined to respond to Mr N’s complaint further. In the response dated 3 December 2020 it has said it will not engage or acknowledge any further correspondence regarding this matter.

34. We understand that Mr N felt distressed at receiving the complaint response just before Christmas when he was not able to discuss it with his advocate.

35. Our NHS Complaint Standards state that a complainant should be told the outcome of the complaint in an appropriate manner, in an appropriate place by an appropriate person.

36. Mr N was entitled to receive the letter directly to his home if that was his preference, and the Trust should have taken that into consideration when issuing his response.

37. The Trust has agreed to write to Mr N and acknowledge that it should have sent the letter directly to him. Our NHS Complaint Standards say that when something has gone wrong organisations should look to provide a remedy. The Complaint Standards say this might include a meaningful apology and an acceptance of responsibility. The Trust has agreed to provide both these things to Mr N. We consider this is sufficient to address how they provided Mr N with its response to his complaint.

38. The Trust has agreed to issue a response to Mr N acknowledging the failings identified in this report. We consider this is sufficient to remedy this issue, in line with our NHS Complaint Standards.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr N’s complaint about South West Yorkshire NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We have seen an indication of a failing in the Trust’s actions. We have seen that Mr N’s opinions and wants for his treatment were not taken into consideration or documented with regards to the psychologist’s appointment. The Trust has agreed to write to Mr N to acknowledge its failing and the impact this had. We consider this is the appropriate action to take.

2. We are sorry to hear of the events in Mr N’s complaint and the distress this has caused him. We hope the information in this report helps to put his mind at rest.

Other Decisions About South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

P-004751 · 30 Jan 2026
Mr C complains that the Trust prescribed medication causing severe side effects and told him to take another medication to …
Not Upheld
P-004474 · 16 Dec 2025
Miss A complains about her care and treatment by the Trust between 2019 and 2021. She says the Trust did …
Not Upheld
P-004426 · 26 Nov 2025
Mrs Whyman complains about care and treatment from the Trust in relation to her outpatient mental health care. We understand …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004305 · 19 Nov 2025
Mrs J complains SWYPT did not offer her mental health support in December 2023. She complains SWYPT inappropriately rejected her …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004234 · 11 Nov 2025
Ms A complains the Trust did not diagnose her condition or provide treatment for it for over nine years.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →