SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about changes made by the HSCP to their adult child (A)'s personal care allowance, the management of and communication relating to direct payments, the HSCP’s communication with C in their role as A’s carer and appointed guardian, and the handling of their complaints. We took independent advice from a social worker adviser. We found that the changes made to A’s personal allowance were reasonable. This is because the HSCP made decisions about A’s allowance that they were entitled to make, taking into account an assessment of A’s needs. With regard to the management and communication of payments, we found that this was reasonably managed by the HSCP. We noted that communication could have been clearer and provided earlier, particularly in relation to the decision to recover funds. However, overall, the HSCP reasonably managed the direct payment account and took appropriate steps to resolve payment issues when they were identified. We also found that the HSCP’s communication with C, as A’s welfare guardian, was reasonable, with records demonstrating that C participated in assessments and discussions about A’s support needs. We did not uphold the complaint. In relation to complaint handling, we noted the complexity of the case and that a number of enquiries had been made through the council’s MSP enquiry process but on balance, we found the complaint handling to be reasonable. We did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 202501438 as a PDF (24.47 KB) Updated: May 20, 2026

C complained to us about the pressure damage care provided to their late parent (A). We took independent advice from an appropriately qualified adviser and made some enquiries to the partnership. In response, the partnership offered an appropriate apology to C and explained improvement work they were doing in relation to this matter. C was happy with this outcome and we closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202407128 as a PDF (23.96 KB) Updated: December 17, 2025

C complained to the partnership about the care and treatment of their late spouse (A). A suffered from Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (a rare neurological condition that can cause problems with balance, movement, vision speech and swallowing). A was admitted to a community hospital for care and support of their complex needs. C complained about unreasonable falls prevention, nutrition, personal hygiene and incident management. C was concerned that there was little information in the medical notes to show that A was being reasonably cared for. They noted that A had fallen on several occasions, that A had dirty hair, had not been washed and was not receiving enough to eat and drink. The partnership advised that A was on continuous intervention during the day and 15 minute observations at night for falls prevention, and that falls risk assessments were carried out as part of routine care, although did not provide evidence of this. They advised that Person Centred Care Plans (PCCP) were recorded in A’s records, risk assessments were completed and updated regularly and all staff were receiving personalised one-to-one training on documentation and PCCP. We took independent advice from a nurse. We found that there was insufficient evidence of falls risk assessments or malnutrition assessments in the records provided, that there were significant gaps in care rounding records and a 5 day period during which A was not offered a wash. We found this to be unreasonable and upheld the complaint.

C complained about various aspects of the care and treatment their spouse (A) received from the partnership. A was an in-patient at a community hospital. Over the course of a few days, A was repeatedly admitted to a larger, specialist hospital for treatment before being transferred back to the community hospital. C complained to the partnership about the care and treatment A received in both hospitals. The partnership apologised for any distress caused to A or C but did not identify any failings in A’s care. C remained unhappy and brought their complaint to us. C complained that there had been a failure to adequately monitor, manage, and treat A in both hospitals, which had led to a serious deterioration in their condition. We took independent advice from a consultant in care of the elderly and general medicine. We found that there had been a failure to medically review A. We also found that there had been a failure to obtain a urine sample during A’s first admission to the specialist hospital and that this had resulted in a failure to detect a serious infection. Therefore, we upheld C’s complaint. We also found that the partnership’s response to the complaint failed to fully reflect the information they obtained during the investigation and failed to adequately detail the learning taken from A’s experience.

C complained about care and treatment provided to their parent (A) by a district nurse from the partnership. A was fitted with a catheter. C contacted a community nurse team to raise concerns that A's catheter was draining slowly and that there was blood in their urine bag. The district nurse visited A later the same day. C was present during this visit. The district nurse assessed A, changed their catheter bag and provided advice. After the visit, the district nurse discussed their actions with a GP. The GP agreed with the district nurse's actions and their assessment of A. The district nurse called C afterwards to inform them of this and to reiterate their earlier advice. Later that evening A's catheter blocked. C called 111 and A was subsequently admitted to hospital. A was diagnosed with urosepsis (a serious infection of the urinary tract). A subsequently died in hospital. C complained to the partnership about A's care and treatment, but they failed to identify any failings. C remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. C complained that the district nurse had failed to provide A with appropriate care and treatment despite knowing that they had a urinary tract infection. Following investigation, and receipt of independent advice, we found that the district nurse had acted reasonably. We found insufficient evidence to illustrate that the district nurse knew that A had a urinary tract infection. We found that the care and treatment provided was reasonable in light of the information available at the relevant time. We did not uphold C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202008168 as a PDF (24.44 KB) Updated: March 23, 2022

C was an executor of their late parent's estate and were seeking to sell a property in line with their parent's will. However, there was a charge on the property which related to legal costs incurred many years ago by their other parent (B). B did not have capacity to agree that the sum should be paid, and as such, an intervention order (a court appointment which authorises a person to act and take a one-off action or make decisions on behalf of an adult with incapacity) was granted by the Sheriff Court for social work (with the support of the council's legal services) to act on behalf of B regarding the charges. C complained about the length of time being taken to execute the intervention order. We found that there were delays in correspondence regarding the execution of the intervention order. We noted that both the partnership and the council had acknowledged and apologised to C for this. Some of the delays were outwith their control due to awaiting responses from C's solicitors and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some of the delays could have been avoided (by having clear lines of responsibility between social work and legal services and by escalating the matter internally). We considered that, on balance, there had been an unreasonable delay in executing the intervention order. As such, we upheld C's complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations due to the action already taken by the partnership. Related reading View Decision Report 202001087 as a PDF (24.45 KB) Updated: August 18, 2021

C complained to us about two matters relating to the partnership. Firstly, they were concerned about an occupational therapy assessment carried out to identify appropriate adaptations for a new property they were being offered, as they did not consider the adaptations made met their needs as a disabled person. Secondly, they were also concerned about a decision made to remove direct payments for support that they had been receiving, as they disputed the partnership's view that these had been improperly managed. We took independent advice from an occupational therapy adviser, who confirmed that the adaptations made to the new property were appropriate, based on the needs assessments completed. We also found that the records of audits carried out into C's management of the direct payments reasonably evidenced the improper management alleged by the partnership. We considered that the partnership had managed both matters appropriately and did not uphold C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201804596 as a PDF (24.19 KB) Updated: May 19, 2021

C complained about the care and treatment they received from the physiotherapy service at a particular appointment. C was concerned that they were asked to walk from the waiting room to the appointment room using crutches, rather than being provided with a wheelchair. We took independent advice from a physiotherapist. We found that at a previous appointment (three weeks prior to the appointment in question), C reported that they could mobilise with crutches. In the circumstances, we found that it was reasonable for the physiotherapist to ask C to mobilise from the waiting area to the treatment area. We did not uphold C's complaint about the care and treatment they received from the physiotherapy service. C also complained about the way the partnership handled their complaint. We did not identify any issues regarding the way that the partnership responded to C's complaints. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201907169 as a PDF (24.11 KB) Updated: March 24, 2021

Mr C contacted the partnership to request local authority funding towards care home costs for his wife (Mrs A). The partnership carried out a New Threshold calculation (calculation that determines an individual's entitlement to funding) for Mrs A, confirmed she was eligible for local authority funding and detailed their contribution to her care home costs. Mr C subsequently requested a review of Mrs A's New Threshold calculation. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the New Threshold calculation carried out. He complained that the partnership had failed to explain their position on Mrs A's financial assessment and as a result he lacked confidence in the figures arrived at by the partnership. He also complained that some of the letters he had received had contained inaccurate information and had misled him in connection with Mrs A's funding. We found that the partnership had met with Mr C on a number of occasions to explain the New Threshold calculation and had carried out re-calculations in response to further information provided by Mr C. We found no evidence that the partnership had not acted in line with their financial assessment processes and relevant guidance when handling Mrs A's New Threshold calculation and financial assessments. In relation to the letters, the partnership have acknowledged that these could have been worded better and have made improvements as a result. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201807203 as a PDF (24.34 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Ms C complained on behalf of her late mother (Mrs A) who died during her admission at a community hospital. Ms C's complaints were that: the partnership did not provide reasonable care and treatment to Mrs A; there was a lack of reasonable communication with Ms C about Mrs A's care and treatment, and the behaviour of staff towards Ms C was unreasonable; the partnership unreasonably obtained a second clinical opinion on Mrs A's eligibility for hospital based NHS continuing healthcare; the decision to discharge Mrs A from hospital, on the grounds that her healthcare needs - did not meet the eligibility criteria for hospital based NHS continuing healthcare was unreasonable; and that the partnership's handling of and their response to Ms C's complaints was unreasonable. We took independent advice from a consultant in geriatric (elderly) and general medicine, and from a senior nurse. We found that, overall, the care and treatment provided to Mrs A was reasonable. We were unable to find evidence of a lack of reasonable communication with Ms C about Mrs A's care and treatment, and that the behaviour of staff towards Ms C was unreasonable. We were satisfied that, in terms of the NHS continuing healthcare guidance which was in place at the time, the partnership were entitled to carry out regular formal reviews of Mrs A's health care needs and to reassess her eligibility for NHS continuing health care. We found that the partnership were entitled to carry out the two clinical assessments of Mrs A's current healthcare needs at the time; that they agreed with the decisions reached that Mrs A did not require the provision of NHS continuing healthcare in line with the relevant guidance and that the decision to discharge Mrs A from hospital was reasonable. We were also satisfied that the partnership appropriately informed Ms C of her right of appeal and of her right to complain to this office. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. We also considered tha

Ms C complained about the treatment she received from the partnership in response to pain in her right thigh. Ms C had previously underwent a total left hip replacement. After the surgery Ms C attended a physiotherapy (the treatment of disease, injury or deformity using physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise) appointment due to pain in her right thigh. While Ms C was carrying out the exercises recommended by the physiotherapist, she experienced pain and a tearing sensation on her operated on side. Ms C said that it was unreasonable to have prescribed those exercises so soon after her operation. Ms C said she was not provided with the appropriate advice or precautions to follow. We took independent medical advice from a consultant vascular surgeon (a clinician who treats disorders of the circulatory system). We found that the exercises prescribed to Ms C were reasonable and found no failings in the treatment offered. There was a record that appropriate precautionary guidance was provided to Ms C. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201804025 as a PDF (23.87 KB) Updated: May 22, 2019

Mr C complained about the partnership's decision to stop prescribing him oral medication to treat his mental health issues. We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist (a medical practitioner who specialises in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness). We found that it was reasonable that the oral medication was stopped and that Mr C was appropriately offered a long-lasting injection of medication instead. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that he was not admitted to hospital after he attended as an emergency. We found that a detailed assessment was carried out of Mr C's condition and his level of risk. We found that the decision not to admit him to hospital was reasonable and appropriate to his needs, given his medical history. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201800091 as a PDF (23.71 KB) Updated: February 20, 2019

Mr C complained about an assessment that concluded that his mother (Mrs A) did not require hospital based complex clinical care (HBCCC). After admission to hospital, Mrs A was assessed and it was decided that she would require HBCCC and was therefore transferred to the appropriate facility. Mrs A was re-assessed at this facility, and it was found that she had become ineligible for HBCCC. Mr C disagreed with the decision that Mrs A was now ineligible and brought his complaint to us. We took independent advice from a consultant in geriatrics. We found that the level of care Mrs A required could be provided in a care home setting and that the decision that she did not need HBCCC was reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. However, we found that there was a delay in organising a re-assessment after the decision was appealed by Mr C and we made a recommendation in connection to this.