10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we have found the Trust has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
11. Mr N told us that he understands things in black and white, either he believes them to be true or not. He told us he says things as they are. He explained that in his group therapy session, he spoke about an Indian family in his neighbourhood, that he was having issues with. He said that at the end of the session, one of the Trust staff made a comment to him, asking if he knew that they were part of the South Asian community. He said the staff member said to him ‘you’ve insulted my Eastern heritage’. Mr N explained to us that he did not understand why the comment was made to him, or why it was made when the session had ended. Mr N said he believed this was made as a negative comment towards him. He told us he felt insulted and offended. He felt the trust he had in his therapist had been breached.
12. The Trust investigated the issue. Initially the staff member involved said their recollection was that the session ended in a light-hearted and positive way. The Trust said the staff member has now reflected on their comments and understands that you did not take the comments as they intended. The staff member said they did not mean to cause Mr N any offense. They have said that on reflection they understand the issues this could have caused him and recognise he was not given the opportunity to express his feeling on the issue, as it happened at the end of the session.
13. Department of health, Skills for care, ‘Code of conduct for healthcare support workers and adult social care workers in England’ says healthcare support workers must communicate in an open and effective way to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of people who use health and care services. It says health care workers must communicate respectfully.
14. We recognise that Mr N believes the staff member was disrespectful towards him. The Trust have acknowledged Mr N may have been offended by the comments made by the staff member.
15. Our Scale of Injustice identifies a level one injustice as annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience typically arising from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failing, where the effect is of short duration. A level two injustice is when what has gone wrong had a relatively low impact on a person. This could also include a single injustice that was more serious but only occurred once.
16. We conclude this distress was of short duration. We recognise this distress will have been significant for Mr N. He told us the event meant he felt he could no longer attend his support sessions, and he was without this support for one month. We do not underestimate the impact this will have had.
17. Mr N said the events have made him angry, and he has lost trust in the staff. He told us he was left without support for one month.
18. Mr N said he suffered stress for almost one year. We believe that some of this stress was as result this event. We cannot clearly link all his stress to the comments made by the staff member.
19. The Trust has apologised to Mr N. It has also made service improvements to ask clinicians to reflect on how therapy sessions can be made more supportive for patients. It has also conducted a review of supervision within the Mentalisation Based Therapy (MBT). MBT is a type of psychological therapy that aims to improve a person’s ability to mentalize in close relationships. Mentalizing is to do with how the mind works, understanding feelings, thoughts and behaviours.
20. For these reasons, we consider the actions the Trust has already taken to put things right are appropriate for the distress it caused. We do not believe a financial remedy is appropriate.
21. We recognise how difficult it is to make a complaint. We would like to thank Mr N for bringing his concerns to us.