Mental health services


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (17 016 161)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 14-Oct-2019

    Summary: The complainant, Miss B said it was wrong when the Council and the CCG asked her to pay a third-party top-up fee towards accommodation provided to her father under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983. She said she did not have help from the Council and the Trust to find a suitable placement and was bullied into signing a third-party top-up agreement. On the evidence available, the Ombudsmen do not find fault by the CCG. The Council and the Trust provided Miss B with good information when explaining why more expensive accommodation would require a third-party top-up payment. There were also faults in the way the Council and the Trust asked Miss B to sign a third-party top-up agreement and this is likely to have caused her avoidable distress. The Council and the Trust did not share a copy of an updated nursing needs assessment with two homes and as a result Miss B is left with doubt about the choice of accommodation process. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations and will apologise, make an acknowledgement payment to Miss B. They will also remind officers of the importance of good practice when dealing with choice of accommodation.

  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (18 018 548)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 03-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen have upheld Mrs G's complaint about the way her carer's assessments were carried out. We have not found fault with the way the Trust, Council and CCG arranged Mr H's accommodation under s117 of the Mental Health Act or how the Trust communicated with Mrs G and Mr H about this.

  • Bolton Clinical Commissioning Group (18 018 548)

    Statement Not upheld Mental health services 03-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen have upheld Mrs G's complaint about the way her carer's assessments were carried out. We have not found fault with the way the Trust, Council and CCG arranged Mr H's accommodation under s117 of the Mental Health Act or how the Trust communicated with Mrs G and Mr H about this.

  • Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (19 000 046)

    Statement Not upheld Mental health services 18-Sep-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen do not consider there was fault in the way Lancashire County Council and Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust decided Mrs B's daughter had capacity to be discharged from the community mental health team. The community mental health team also considered Mrs B's concerns.

  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (18 018 977)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 04-Sep-2019

    Summary: The Council and Trust have already acknowledged they failed to assess Mr F as a carer and failed to provide him with support. The Council has accepted our recommendation to provide an apology. The Trust has accepted our recommendation to issue staff guidance. The Ombudsmen have therefore completed their investigation.

  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (18 005 323)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 04-Sep-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found faults in safeguarding Mrs D's mother Mrs F, assessing Mrs F and her husband, and in responding to Mrs D's complaint. The Council and Trust have already accepted there were faults and apologised. This is an appropriate way to address the injustice to Mrs D's family. The Council and Trust have also improved services since Mrs D's complaint. Some of their process and information remain flawed, so we have recommended service improvements. The Council and Trust accept our recommendations, so the Ombudsmen have completed their investigation.

  • Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (17 015 382)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 21-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council's and Trust's actions when providing care and support for her adult daughter Miss X. There was fault by the Council and the Trust in the way it assessed Miss X and this has caused some uncertainty about her care planning. I recommend a re-assessment with a specialist autism assessor to remedy the injustice. I also found fault with the delayed complaints handling by both bodies and their failure to consider a 'joint response' which caused injustice to Mrs Y. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice.

  • Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (18 012 800)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 14-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was an avoidable and unreasonable delay in arranging support for a man entitled to s117 aftercare. As a result he missed out on an opportunity to benefit from this support for close to a year. The fault also meant his mother incurred costs she would not have otherwise had, in attempting to provide replacement care. The NHS Trust has agreed to apologise, make payments and create an action plan to address the injustice these failings caused.

  • Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (18 012 800)

    Statement Not upheld Mental health services 14-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find there was an avoidable and unreasonable delay in arranging support for a man entitled to s117 aftercare. As a result he missed out on an opportunity to benefit from this support for close to a year. The fault also meant his mother incurred costs she would not have otherwise had, in attempting to provide replacement care. The NHS Trust has agreed to apologise, make payments and create an action plan to address the injustice these failings caused.

  • Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (18 002 602)

    Statement Upheld Mental health services 08-Aug-2019

    Summary: The complainant, Mr X, complained about the way the Council and Trust assessed his physical and mental health needs in 2014. The Ombudsmen found the Trust acted with fault in not properly assessing Mr X especially his concerns over his medication when he was discharged from its care. The Trust promptly acknowledged this and has already reimbursed the complainant £375 for his costs incurred in seeking a private doctor to review his medication. However, the Ombudsmen also later found the complainant suffered uncertainty as to whether his personal budget would have increased but for the fault. He also suffered a lost opportunity to challenge the assessment as it was not provided to him at the time. And the Trust continued to fail to deal with his complaint properly. The Trust has now agreed to the Ombudsmen's recommendations to pay Mr X an additional £750 to remedy Mr X's uncertainty, lost opportunity and time and trouble taken to complain.