Brighton & Hove Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519)
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.
NHS East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (19 018 519)
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.
NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Group (20 006 041)
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.
Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (20 008 962)
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 (20 009 117)
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 (18 015 760)
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.
Hull Clinical Commissioning Group (18 015 760)
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.
NHS Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Group (19 005 431)
Statement Not upheld Assessment and funding 14-Dec-2020
Summary: We found fault by the Council with regards to the care and support it provided to Miss X, a woman with complex needs, in the community. We also found fault by the Council and Trust concerning the handling of Miss X's discharge from hospital. This fault caused Miss X significant distress and frustration. The Council and Trust have agreed to apologise to Miss X and the Council will make a payment in recognition of the distress she suffered.
Telford & Wrekin Clinical Commissioning Group (18 018 951)
Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 18-Aug-2020
Summary: Mrs Z complains about her late father's care and assessments in hospital, discharge from hospital and communication by the organisations involved. We have found fault relating to documentation, communication and complaint handling. We have not upheld the rest of the complaint. The Council has offered a financial remedy for Mrs Z which we consider is fair. We have recommended apologies for Mrs Z and service improvements. The organisations concerned accept our recommendations. We have therefore completed our investigation.
NHS East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (19 014 173)
Statement Upheld Assessment and funding 30-Jul-2020
Summary: The Ombudsmen find a CCG did not do enough to pursue alternative ways of arranging Continuing Healthcare outside of directly commissioning it. As a result Ms A had to provide a significant amount of care for her mother which, in turn, caused avoidable stress and discomfort. The Ombudsmen also find a Council did not handle the removal of a source of support to Ms A as sensitively as it should. The Ombudsmen has recommended apologies and a financial payment to address these injustices.