SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about the care provided to their elderly parent (A). A had to remain in bed to allow several pressure sores to be treated. To assist with moving A out of bed and changing A's position, a manual handling assessment was requested. C felt that there was an unreasonable delay in conducting this assessment and that when it was carried out, the equipment was provided too slowly and was not fit for purpose. The partnership responded to C but denied acting unreasonably, or that there had been an undue delay. C responded to this challenging the accuracy of the partnership's response. The partnership issued a second response which acknowledged the first response had been inaccurate. However, they maintained that staff had acted reasonably, and that A had not been put at risk by the handling equipment used to move them. We found that there had been a delay in providing a manual handling assessment caused by the referral not being initially received, which was compounded by staff absence on leave. However the partnership were able to demonstrate they had already addressed this through the recruitment of additional staff. We also found that the partnership's procedures required them to review the suitability of manual handling equipment after it was delivered to the patient, as well as ensure care staff were competent at using the equipment properly. This was not done, and we found it was unreasonable for the partnership not to have followed their own procedures. We also found that it was unreasonable for the partnership to have issued a stage 2 complaint response which was inaccurate, as their follow-up response acknowledged that it had not reflected the partnership's electronic records accurately. Therefore, we upheld C's complaints.

C made a number of complaints on behalf of their adult child (A) in relation to the service received from the partnership. We took independent advice from a social worker. C complained about a delay in referring A for a functional assessment. Whilst we recognised the stress caused whilst waiting for the assessment and bathroom adaptations, we found that the process followed and the time taken was in accordance with standard practice. C complained about the lack of an annual support plan for A. We considered that the partnership should have confirmed to A that the existing plan still applied; however, we noted that they had to comply with government guidance in care planning. This meant there was a high volume of care plans that required to be updated and priority was given to those with urgent critical or substantial need. A’s care needs had not changed substantially or critically and therefore A's care support was not reviewed until their needs changed when they moved to their own home. C complained that a draft care and support plan prepared did not meet A's needs. We found that the needs documented from discussions were reflected in the draft care and support plan. C also complained that A was not provided with copies of minutes of meetings. We found that it was not standard practice to provide copies of the particular type of meetings referred to. Finally, C complained that a record of a home visit was inaccurate in that it was documented that A engaged with the social worker, when this was not the case. We found that it was not possible to establish what occurred on the day in the absence of other evidence. We did not uphold any of C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201901360 as a PDF (24.57 KB) Updated: November 18, 2020

Mr C complained that the partnership failed to handle his complaint properly and that they had not responded to his concerns about his child. We found Mr C had made his complaint prior to 1 April 2017. This means that his complaint should have been progressed under the old social work complaints procedure with a Complaint Review Committee hearing as the final stage in the process. Although Mr C had evidence that he had requested that his complaint be escalated, this had not happened. We found that the partnership had incorrectly signposted Mr C to us (as per the new social work complaints procedure introduced from 1 April 2017). Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr  C's complaint. We were unable to consider Mr C's second complaint as it had to have gone through the appropriate complaint process.

Miss C requested an assessment from the Occupational Therapy Service with a view of adapting her property to meet her mobility needs. Miss C complained that the partnership failed to carry out a thorough assessment and that they failed to provide consistent and accurate information about their policies relating to grants and adaptations. The partnership confirmed that there were appropriate and timely assessments carried out of Miss C's needs. However, they recognised that improvements are required on how they communicate their decisions and support customers in complex situations. Miss C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us. We found that the partnership's assessments were consistent with the guidance as set out in the their Occupational Therapy Service Criteria. We also found that Miss C was provided with consistent advice about her eligibility for grants and adaptations. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. However, we asked the partnership to provide evidence of the improvements they are making to their processes. Related reading View Decision Report 201800777 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C received treatment at a dental service run by the partnership and was unhappy that, for one instance of specific dental treatment, the partnership referred her treatment to the Practitioner Services Division (PSD) for approval. Ms C said that if she had been a patient at a high street dentist, she would not have needed the treatment referred. We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that both high street dentists and the partnership's dental service were regulated in exactly the same way, including carrying out treatments in line with the Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR). The SDR sets out the rules defining the types of filling, denture or other restoration, and what type of material can be used. It also defines the timing of treatment types and the costs of those treatments. Some types of material, or restoration, are not included in the SDR, and so require prior approval from PSD. The treatment Ms C wanted was not included in the SDR and, therefore, the partnership had to apply to PSD for approval. This was not a policy of the parternship's making, but applies across Scotland. We concluded that the partnership acted reasonably in referring Ms C's treatment to PSD for approval, and we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201701739 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018