SPSO Individual Decisions

C, who has a progressive neurological disorder, complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the partnership providing adaptions to their home. We took independent advice from an occupational therapist (a healthcare professional who supports people to improve their ability to carry out everyday tasks). We found that this was a complex case in which C's occupational therapist was required to take account of a range of factors. It required multidisciplinary involvement, and it was important for support to be aligned with C’s readiness and preferences. Overall, we found that the timescales were reasonable. We did not uphold this part of C's complaint. C complained that there was an unreasonable delay in social work providing C with an appropriate support package. We took independent advice from a social worker. We acknowledged that there was a delay between C indicating that they required additional support and requesting an assessment for Self-Directed Support (SDS), and the request being progressed four months later. However, we found no evidence that this delay was due to any fault on the part of social work. With regard to the timescale for providing a reablement care package (help with daily activities), we found that the partnership respected the pace at which C was able to cope with the decisions required about their care and support. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of C's complaint. However, we found that there was a period during which social work could have been more proactive. C appears to have had to push in order to progress an assessment for SDS. We recognised the frustration this must have caused at a time when C was experiencing a significant deterioration in their health. While we did not uphold the complaint, we gave the partnership feedback on a number of matters including the tone of the complaint response, their communication with C, and possible areas for service improvement for service users with rapidly progressive conditions. Relat

C's adult child (A) lived in sheltered accommodation managed by the partnership. A had an overnight carer in their flat for a number of years. Technology Enabled Care (TEC) was later installed in A's flat to provide overnight care. C complained that the partnership made unreasonable changes to A's overnight care provision. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the actions taken by the partnership were reasonable. Prior to the change being made the partnership considered C's concerns and responded to them, considered the information available to assess A's overnight needs, undertook appropriate risk assessments to identify risks and took steps to mitigate them where possible. A trial of TEC was undertaken, and at the point where TEC was to become the source of overnight monitoring it was phased in. The partnership also offered a review of the overnight care if A's behaviour changed. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201901240 as a PDF (24.18 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020