PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained about the Council’s decision to reject his request for post-16 additional learning needs (“ALN”) transport for his daughter. The Ombudsman considered that the eligibility criteria which the Council had applied was not available to the public at the time of the request, or contained within its policy. She also considered that the Council had made no true assessment of Mr A’s daughter, and had restricted its discretion by applying this criteria. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, make a full assessment of Mr A’s daughter’s circumstances and re-consider the request, and to review its eligibility criteria. Further, within 8 weeks, to undertake a review of all applications within the last 12 months to identify any decisions where the same criteria was applied, and agree to re-consider any applications identified.

Mr P complained that Torfaen County Borough Council refused to escalate his concerns to Stage 2 of its Corporate Complaints process. The Ombudsman found that the Council had refused to escalate his concerns in line with its Corporate Complaints process. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr P. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr P with an apology and for its refusal to escalate his concerns and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 2 weeks.

Mr X complained that the Council had refused to consider his complaint (about care provision for his mother) under stage 2 of the statutory Social Services complaints procedure. The Ombudsman found that the assessment process and provision of care was a social services function which would fall under the statutory complaints process. The Council therefore agreed, should Mr X submit his outstanding points of complaint, to consider the complaint under stage 2 of that process.

Mr A said his mother was a resident at B Residential Care Home (“the Care Homes”). Mr A complained that the Care Home had interfered/monitored his telephone calls/Facebook/communications with his mother during a safeguarding investigation. The Ombudsman found that Mr A’s mother was deemed to have capacity to make her own decisions, that the Council funded her placement at the Care Home and it had undertaken the safeguarding investigation. Accordingly, the complaint should be directed to, and addressed by the Council, which is the correct body to deal with this complaint. The Ombudsman found that Mr A had complained to the Care Home, but not Torfaen County Borough Council (“the Council.”) Following our contact with the Council, it agreed in settlement of this complaint, to contact Mr A within 20 working days, to put his complaint through its statutory social services complaints procedure and provide him with a formal written response to his concerns.

Ms A complained about a GP Practice (“the Practice”) in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (“the Health Board”) area who provided care and treatment to her father, Mr B, while he was a resident at a care home (“the Care Home”). His residency at the Care Home was funded by Torfaen County Borough Council (“the Council”). Specifically, Ms A complained that: • The Practice failed to provide timely and appropriate care and treatment to Mr B between January and May 2019, when Mr B had a below the knee amputation. • The Care Home failed to provide timely care and treatment to Mr B in terms of pressure area management and wound management, failed to communicate with, and involve her, in decision making including failing to allow her to view Mr B’s foot, and failed to act upon concerns raised by Ms A. • The Council failed to review/monitor Mr B’s care while he was a resident at the Care Home. The investigation found that the care provided by the Practice was appropriate with timely and appropriate investigations conducted, that test results were reviewed in a timely manner and actioned appropriately, and it was appropriate not to refer Mr B to hospital before 13 May. As such, the complaint against the Practice was not upheld. The investigation found that the Care Home acted in a timely manner by seeking assistance from the District Nurse (“DN”) Team when Mr B’s heel wound was first noticed and acted promptly in seeking GP input when an infection was suspected. The investigation found that Mr B did not initially want his information shared with Ms A without his consent, and, therefore, it would not have been appropriate to share and involve Ms A in decision making regarding his health, care and treatment. The investigation found that the Care Home did not fail to act upon concerns raised by Ms A about Mr B’s foot. As such, these aspects of the complaint were not upheld. However, Mr B was not subject to a prompt and thorough skin assessment by Care Home staff when he wa

Ms A complained about a GP Practice (“the Practice”) in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (“the Health Board”) area who provided care and treatment to her father, Mr B, while he was a resident at a care home (“the Care Home”). His residency at the Care Home was funded by Torfaen County Borough Council (“the Council”). Specifically, Ms A complained that: • The Practice failed to provide timely and appropriate care and treatment to Mr B between January and May 2019, when Mr B had a below the knee amputation. • The Care Home failed to provide timely care and treatment to Mr B in terms of pressure area management and wound management, failed to communicate with, and involve her, in decision making including failing to allow her to view Mr B’s foot, and failed to act upon concerns raised by Ms A. • The Council failed to review/monitor Mr B’s care while he was a resident at the Care Home. The investigation found that the care provided by the Practice was appropriate with timely and appropriate investigations conducted, that test results were reviewed in a timely manner and actioned appropriately, and it was appropriate not to refer Mr B to hospital before 13 May. As such, the complaint against the Practice was not upheld. The investigation found that the Care Home acted in a timely manner by seeking assistance from the District Nurse (“DN”) Team when Mr B’s heel wound was first noticed and acted promptly in seeking GP input when an infection was suspected. The investigation found that Mr B did not initially want his information shared with Ms A without his consent, and, therefore, it would not have been appropriate to share and involve Ms A in decision making regarding his health, care and treatment. The investigation found that the Care Home did not fail to act upon concerns raised by Ms A about Mr B’s foot. As such, these aspects of the complaint were not upheld. However, Mr B was not subject to a prompt and thorough skin assessment by Care Home staff when he wa