SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C contacted the commission to raise concerns about the care and treatment his late mother (Mrs A) received while in hospital. Mrs A had advanced dementia and was elderly and frail. Mr C complained that the commission did not appropriately investigate his concerns about the care and treatment his mother received and also the circumstances of her death. He also complained that they failed to handle his complaint appropriately. The commission advised Mr C that they visited Mrs A on two occasions, consulted with various professionals involved in Mrs A's care, and reviewed her records. The commission confirmed that they did not have any grounds to investigate Mr C's concerns any further and they referred him to the NHS complaints procedure. Mr C then brought his complaint to us. We found that the commission took the appropriate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns by visiting Mrs A on two occasions and making various enquiries. The commission considered that the NHS decisions relating to Mrs A's care were based on thorough assessments and, therefore, we considered that it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude they had insufficient grounds to investigate further. As the care and treatment was found to be reasonable, it was also appropriate for the commission to decide they had no grounds to investigate the circumstances of Mrs A's death. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. However, we did find that the commission failed to respond to an email of complaint sent by Mr C and that they failed to refer Mr C to our office in the correspondence which they later said was their final response. We upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. We noted that the commission have since attended complaints handling training, and we therefore made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201701288 as a PDF (11.36 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Ms C complained to us that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland had not reasonably handled her concerns about her detention under the Mental Health Act. We explained to Ms C that we could not look at the matter of her detention, but we did look at how they handled her concerns. We found that, following receipt of Ms C's original letter in which she outlined these concerns, the commission requested further information so that they could make a decision about whether and how to deal with the issues she had raised. Ms C told us that she did not receive this letter and so went on to send three follow-up letter, but received no acknowledgement or response to these. The commission then wrote to Ms C to clarify what information was required, and she provided this in a letter. In it she made it clear that she was unhappy with the handling of her correspondence and said she could not understand whether her letters had been received and why they had not generated any acknowledgement or response. She asked for all her complaints to be looked at together by a senior manager. Ms C again received no reply, and wrote again a month later. The commission did then respond to the issues she had raised and apologised for their failure to reply. Ms C was advised of her right to complain about the handling of her correspondence. She exercised that right and the commission upheld her complaint. Our investigation also upheld Ms C's complaint. We found that it should have been clear on receiving her three follow-up letters that she had not received the letter requesting further information; so three opportunities to set the record straight were missed. When Ms C wrote to provide the information requested she then had to prompt the commission again by sending a follow-up letter. We found this unacceptable. We also found that the commission could have recognised Ms C's dissatisfaction earlier and should have dealt with the issues about their handling of her correspondence a

Mrs C complained that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (the Commission) failed to respond appropriately to a letter sent to them by her son. The letter contained her son's concerns about his detention and treatment under Mental Health legislation. In addition, Mrs C complained that the Commission failed to tell her or her husband about the letter, and failed to provide her son with reasonable levels of help following a meeting in 2008. We did not look into the complaint about levels of help, as Mrs C had not given the Commission the opportunity to respond to her concerns on this point through their complaints process. We did not uphold her complaint that they failed to inform her or her husband of the letter, as the Commission had no authority to share this information with them. We did, however, uphold her complaint that they had failed to respond appropriately to the letter. We found that their response was delayed by staff absence and that by the time the letter was actioned, their son had moved to stay with his brother in another part of the UK. As, however, the Commission had acknowledged and apologised for their failure to respond promptly to the letter, made changes to their processes and as they had visited him in hospital when he returned to Scotland, we did not recommend any further actions. Related reading View Decision Report 201104524 as a PDF (14.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018