NHS East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519b)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 07-Mar-2022

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

Brighton & Hove Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519c)

Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 07-Mar-2022

Summary: The complainant, Ms B, said she learnt in 2020 the Council, the Trust and two Clinical Commissioning Groups did not properly consider her daughter’s, Miss G’s, entitlement to free aftercare following her detainment under the Mental Health Act 1983. She also complained about the care and support provided to Miss G by the Council and the Trust. On the evidence available, we found that Miss G was not entitled to free aftercare. However, poor record keeping by the authorities led to confusion and Ms B’s uncertainty about Miss G’s entitlement to free aftercare. It also meant one of the CCG’s did not consider Miss G for healthcare funding when it should have. The Council and the Trust did not work together to complete the actions in Miss G’s discharge plan when she was released from detention and the Council did not complete care and support planning documentation properly. The authorities agreed to our recommendations and will reassess Miss G’s needs and entitlement to healthcare funding. The Council, the Trust and one of the CCG’s will apologise to Ms B and Miss G and make an acknowledgement payment. The Council will remind its officers of the importance of completing care and support planning documentation in line with best practice and statutory guidance.

North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group (Enfield) (21 010 067a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and funding 17-Jan-2022

Summary: The Ombudsmen have decided they will not investigate a complaint about a person’s health and social care as it has not been made by a suitable person. Further, it would be reasonable to use an alternative legal remedy.

Warrington Clinical Commissioning Group (21 007 653a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and funding 20-Dec-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council did not properly assess her father, Mr C’s, social care needs, and did not record his condition accurately. This is because Mrs B’s complaint is late and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to the desired outcome.

NHS England (21 007 653b)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and funding 20-Dec-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council did not properly assess her father, Mr C’s, social care needs, and did not record his condition accurately. This is because Mrs B’s complaint is late and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to the desired outcome.

NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Group (20 006 041a)

Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 18-Oct-2021

Summary: We do not consider Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Group acted with fault when it withdrew Mr U’s night-time funding from a jointly funded care package with Nottinghamshire County Council. However, both organisations acted with fault handling Mr U’s complaints. That caused him significant time and trouble which they should remedy with a financial payment and service improvements.

North East Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group (21 007 876a)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Assessment and funding 17-Oct-2021

Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint. Her complaints about North East Lincolnshire Council’s safeguarding procedures and Bradley House Care Home and North East Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s support for her mother are late.

Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (20 008 962a)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 08-Sep-2021

Summary: Dr X complained about delay in arranging a fast-track continuing healthcare assessment for her father. We did not find fault by a Council or a Trust in considering referral for a continuing healthcare assessment sooner. However, we found fault with the Council’s complaint handling. We recommended a financial payment to recognise the additional distress this caused.

NHS Derby and Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group (20 009 117a)

Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 18-Aug-2021

Summary: Mrs B complained about a funding dispute between the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group which prevented her daughter from moving to a suitable placement in 2019. On the evidence available now, we found fault by the Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group as they delayed in following their local dispute resolution policy. This impacted on Mrs B’s daughter’s independence and caused avoidable frustration and time and trouble to Mrs B. To put things right the authorities have agreed to apologise to Mrs B and her daughter and make acknowledgement payments to them. The Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group will work together to agree a suitable placement for Mrs B’s daughter and agree funding in line with the relevant laws and their local policies.

Hull Clinical Commissioning Group (18 015 760c)

Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 26-Jul-2021

Summary: Kingston Upon Hull City Council, Molescroft Nursing Home Limited and Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited all acted with fault when supporting Mrs B. Those faults include personal care, unfairly charging a top-up, best interest decision making, safeguarding investigations, and complaint handling. Those faults had an emotional and financial impact on Mrs B’s son, Mr A.