SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of a relative (A) who had a learning disability and had been prescribed a special adjusted diet according to the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) guidelines. A had choked on their food and required emergency care. C complained that A’s food, a takeaway meal, had not been suitable for them and had not been prepared in line with their adjusted diet. They considered that this and other failings caused the near fatal choking incident. We took independent advice from a speech and language therapist. We found that it was reasonable for staff to have obtained a takeaway meal for A and did not uphold this part of C’s complaint. However, we found that staff had failed to follow guidance and ensure that an assessment had been carried out as to whether this meal was safe for A, and that they failed to prepare the meal for A in line with their adjusted diet. Therefore, we upheld these complaints. In addition, we upheld complaints that the partnership had failed to provide A with the correct cutlery and that they failed to appropriately investigate the incident.

C complained about the actions of a consultant during an appointment to assess them for adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD, a behavioural disorder that includes symptoms such as inattentiveness, hyperactivity and impulsiveness). They also questioned the basis upon which the determination that C did not meet the criteria for ADHD had been made. We took independent advice from a psychiatric adviser. We found that the clinical records were detailed and comprehensive and clearly showed that the consultant who assessed C had acted in accordance with relevant guidance. We found that the evidence demonstrated that the clinical records contained relevant information to provide a clear opinion as to whether or not C had ADHD which was informed by appropriate historical, clinical and questionnaire based information. We also found that the decision to discharge C back to their GP practice was appropriate and reasonable, particularly as the evidence demonstrated the consultation had been a second opinion appointment. We found no evidence that the consultant had acted unreasonably at the clinic consultation and we did not uphold this complaint. C also complained about the response they received to their complaint. We found that the response from the partnership was unreasonable as it contained the personal views of a senior manager unrelated to the information in the case record. There was also a failure to address aspects of C's complaint regarding specific questions which had been asked during the consultation. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Allegations were made against C that they entered into inappropriate financial arrangements with clients to whom they provided homecare services. C complained about the way that the partnership conducted the investigation into those allegations and the impact this had on them and their business. In terms of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 Code of Practice (the Code of Practice), we found that the partnership had a clear responsibility to determine whether service users of C's company were at any risk when dealing with C. Any investigation into the actions of C or their staff would be matters for the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) or the Care Inspectorate. We considered that when the partnership were made aware of the allegations against C, they quickly commenced inquiries with C's clients under Adult Support and Protection legislation, and in line with the Code of Practice. These inquiries led them to conclude that there was no immediate risk to the service users and no further action was necessary. However, given the nature of the allegations and advice from the police, the partnership considered it appropriate to notify the SSSC and the Care Inspectorate. We found this to be reasonable. It was the SSSC, rather than the partnership, that investigated the allegations against C and accordingly we would have expected the SSSC, rather than the partnership, to notify C of these allegations and seek evidence from them. That said, we considered the partnership's communication with C could have been better and that a lot of correspondence could have been avoided, had the partnership explained their role and the decisions they make more clearly to C from the outset. On balance, we upheld C's complaint. During our investigation, the partnership told us that they had learned from what occurred with C. They explained they had set up a joint operational Social Work, Adult Support and Protection, Care Inspectorate and Police sub-group to pro

C, a support and advocacy worker, complained to us on behalf of their client (A) about the care and treatment that the partnership provided to A. In particular, C complained that A was not given appropriate support during and after their transfer to adult mental health services. We took independent advice from an adviser in mental health nursing. We found that A's transition to adult mental health services was reasonably planned and carried out. We also found that A was given reasonable care and treatment after their transfer to adult services. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201909457 as a PDF (23.96 KB) Updated: June 23, 2021

C complained to us that the partnership had unreasonably decided that the overnight support for their relative (A) could be provided by technology in A's home. This had previously been provided by a carer. We took independent advice from a social work adviser. We found that the partnership had reasonably assessed A's needs; had reasonably addressed the concerns raised by the family; and had reasonably decided to replace the overnight sleepover support with enhanced telecare. We did not find evidence that the partnership had failed to pay adequate attention to human rights considerations. In particular, we were satisfied that they had appropriately considered A's needs and outcomes along with the views of A's family, previous respite carers and appropriate professionals. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201907049 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021