Assessment and care plan


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Southampton City Council (17 015 361)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr B's future respite care. This caused avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect the loss of respite care during the period of closure. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.

  • Surrey County Council (18 010 777)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council assessed her needs and agreed she had a need to access the bath, but has not provided the required equipment or adaptations to enable her to do this. This has affected her health and wellbeing. The Council is at fault. There was a lack of clarity in how it assessed her needs and eligibility for assistance. This has caused Mrs X confusion and uncertainty. The Council agrees to complete a reassessment of her needs, and pay her £100 to acknowledge the confusion and uncertainty. It also agrees to review its occupational therapy assessment procedures.

  • Suffolk County Council (17 016 604)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in a Council's and Health Service's responses to requests for home support. Both organisations made relevant enquiries, and neither was able to satisfy itself that the person had needs which met their criteria for support.

  • Southampton City Council (18 003 855)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Ms D's future respite care. This caused Ms C and Ms D avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect the loss of respite care during the period of closure. This action is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.

  • Dorset County Council (18 011 460)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 08-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr D complained about how the Council considered his son's contributions towards the cost of his care. However, we have found no fault with the Council's actions.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (18 004 656)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided by the Council to her son, Mr Z. Mrs X is not a suitable representative for Mr Z. In addition, there is no evidence of fault in the care being provided to Mr Z.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (17 011 818)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council assessed her mother's needs and mental capacity, dealt with deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) and her complaints about this. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in respect of the DoLS process, also some delay in assessment. This caused Miss X significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, review Mrs Y, and pay Miss X £300.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 004 856)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 28-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the provision of adult social care support for his elderly mother in the months before she died. And about the provision of adaptations. There was fault in the Council's consideration of Mrs C's ASC needs, the provision of respite care and in the complaint response. The Council should, within a month of the final decision, apologise and pay Mr X £500. It should also review the arrangements it has in place with housing associations for the provision of disabled adaptations.

  • Southampton City Council (18 001 551)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council made decisions about Ms L's future respite care. This caused Ms K and Ms L avoidable uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out further reviews and a mental capacity assessment and make a payment to reflect the loss of respite care during the closure.

  • Essex County Council (17 015 113)

    Statement Upheld Assessment and care plan 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault by a Council and a CCG with the way it assessed someone's care needs and entitlement to Continuing Healthcare funding. The organisations have already acknowledged these faults, but the Ombudsmen recommended actions to remedy the outstanding injustices to the complainant, which the organisations have accepted. The Ombudsmen found no fault with a care home's decision to seek advice from other organisations or with the medication given while providing care for a resident.

;