SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the health and social care partnership’s (HSCP) investigation of a medicine protocol breach identified at their relatives (A) care home in the week before A's death. A social worker investigated the breach in response to an Adult Support and Protection (ASP) notice raised by the care home, and determined that no further action was required. Separately, the Care Inspectorate had investigated other concerns raised by C about the care and treatment provided to A, including the medicine protocol breach. The Care Inspectorate’s investigation identified failings and made recommendations for improvement. In light of this, C contested the partnership’s position, indicating their view that the investigation was faulty, particularly noting the outcome of the Care Inspectorate’s investigation of the same matter. C received a stage two complaint response letter from the partnership. We considered the response had not fully considered C’s concerns, therefore, we asked the partnership to provide a further response to C’s complaint. C remained dissatisfied with the partnership’s second response. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the partnership had a duty to investigate the concerns raised in keeping with ASP legislation. We noted that this matter had been investigated by a single social worker. However, we found that the Care Inspectorate were better placed to investigate the matter in keeping with the Health and Social Care Standards, with the partnership’s role being to liaise with the Care Inspectorate and the care home regarding the outcome and recommendations. While the social worker’s report was in itself reasonable for an inquiry, we found that it was better suited to be used in collaboration with the other relevant agencies. We upheld the complaint. We also upheld a complaint about complaint handling, noting that C had not been made aware that their concerns were being managed in line with the complaint hand

C complained on behalf of their late parents (A) about the quality and management of home care provided to them by a third party organisation acting for the partnership. In response, the partnership highlighted a number of implemented and planned changes to the policy/procedure and provision of care. The most significant of these was a move from a mixed model of care provision, i.e. partly in house and partly external independent care providers, to a fully internal model for all people who do not choose a particular care provider (under self-directed support) to deliver their care needs. This move will be ongoing through 2023/24. The partnership’s response was discussed with C, who agreed that the changes resolved their concerns. The complaint was closed as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202007591 as a PDF (24.19 KB) Updated: April 19, 2023

C and their late spouse adopted a number of siblings outside of their local authority area. C complained about the lack of post-adoption support provided by the partnership, including lack of adoption support plans and lack of support provided to C and the children during C's spouse's diagnosis with terminal illness and subsequent death. C also raised concerns regarding the impact the lack of support had on the adoption. C further complained about communication and issues regarding documentation recording. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the partnership failed to meet its legal and regulatory obligations across a number of areas, including case recording and documentation, supervision visits, and the provision of Adoption Support Plans when this was requested by the adoptive parents. We found that exceptional support was identified as being needed for this family and the partnership failed to provide this. We considered that the partnership's failure to provide adequate support to the family was likely to be a contributory factor to the breakdown in the adoption. We also found that some communication between the partnership and C was unreasonable. While later communication was more reasonable, there was a lack of awareness of the impact of the failure in service at the start of the placement on the relationship, and we considered this to be unreasonable. As a result, we upheld this complaint.

C, an advocate, complained on behalf of their client (A) regarding the length of time taken by the partnership to complete a kinship care assessment in respect of A's grandchild. A was seeking for the kinship care allowance to be backdated. Following two enquiries from this office, the partnership acknowledged that there was an unacceptable delay in completing the kinship assessment and they confirmed that they would backdate the kinship care payment. The partnership also said that they would meet with A to explain the detail and breakdown of the payment and make arrangements for the payment to be made. C confirmed that the above actions would provide a satisfactory resolution to A's complaint. The complaint was closed on the basis that it had been resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201908907 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: September 23, 2020

Mrs C, an advocacy and support worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr  A) that the partnership unreasonably failed to carry out a full or formal kinship care assessment. Mr A became the legal guardian of his two younger siblings following his mother (Ms B)'s death. Before and after Ms B's death, the partnership indicated that Mr A would receive kinship allowances after he assumed caring responsibilities for his siblings. However, the partnership later advised Mr A that they would not pay kinship allowances, stating that as the caring arrangements were made before Ms B died, the partnership did not have a responsibility to do so. Mrs C challenged this decision, stating that Mr A is an informal kinship carer and his siblings could be considered to be at risk of becoming looked after (a looked after child is a child under the care of the council). This would mean that his siblings could be classed as eligible children, which would allow kinship allowances to be paid. However, the partnerships's view was that Mr A's siblings were not at risk of becoming looked after and were therefore not eligible children. We took independent advice from an adviser with a background in social work and children and family services. We found that the partnership had not carried out an appropriate assessment to determine whether Mr A's siblings were at risk of becoming looked after. The partnership had largely based their decision-making on statements made by Mr A. We considered that these statements were not adequate evidence that the siblings were not at risk of becoming looked after. We noted a number of entries in the partnership's records that indicated that Mr  A and his family were struggling and that Mr A and Ms B's decision-making appeared to have been influenced by the understanding that kinship allowances would be paid. Therefore, we upheld Mrs C's complaint. We noted that the partnership had apologised for indicating that Mr A would receive kinship allowance