Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cambian Group Plc (17 013 442)

    Statement Upheld Other 31-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council, NHS Trust and private provider worked together when a specialist placement ended in an unplanned way. The provider did not keep others properly informed of the resident's deterioration, and the Council and Trust did not work together effectively to arrange alternative care in a timely way. This caused the young woman distress, and her parents stress. The organisations will apologise and provide symbolic financial payments to recognise this injustice. They will also take steps to learn from the case and prevent recurrences.

  • East Staffordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (17 017 844)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs T complained about problems she had accessing funding for her daughter, Miss R. The Council did not complete reviews properly and failed to allocate a social worker to Miss R's case. The CCG took over 12 months to decide that Miss R was eligible for healthcare funding and took too long to agree a suitable support plan. This caused injustice to Miss R's paid carers which include Mrs T. The Council and the CCG agreed to the Ombudsmen's recommendations to apologise, pay a financial remedy, complete a retrospective review of Miss R's entitlement to healthcare funding and consider whether any lessons can be learnt.

  • Fylde & Wyre Clinical Commissioning Group (17 000 039)

    Statement Upheld Other 21-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen uphold a complaint about a lack of support and management of the production of a child's Educational Health and Care Plan by the Council and the CCG. This led to delays, frustration and a lack of provision of required services.

  • Southern Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group (17 015 873)

    Statement Upheld Other 20-Dec-2018

    Summary: Miss T, complained on behalf of the late Mr G, about the failure of the Council and the CCG to arrange and provide suitable support to manage his property and financial affairs. Miss T said as a result Mr G accrued debt, could not access his bank account and experienced distress. On the evidence available, the Ombudsmen found a dispute between the Council and the CCG led to a delay in
    Mr G receiving support to act for him and manage his property and financial affairs. It is likely, on balance, that Mr G could not understand the impact the faults had on him so did not experience injustice. The Council and the CCG have agreed to provide an update to the Ombudsmen and Miss T to show what improvements they have made to joint working arrangements to help prevent similar mistakes.

  • P J Care Ltd (17 015 817)

    Statement Not upheld Other 07-Dec-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find fault in the way a Council conducted a safeguarding enquiry. As a result restrictions were put in place before proper consideration had been given to the person's best interests. This, in turn, caused avoidable distress to her husband. The Council has agreed to action to learn from the case.

  • Hastings & Rother Clinical Commissioning Group (16 017 727)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council and CCG's moving and handling assessment resulted in her daughter's care package breaking down. The Ombudsmen do not consider there is fault as the assessment was carried out correctly and I do not consider it caused the agency providing care to withdraw.

  • Hastings & Rother Clinical Commissioning Group (16 015 553)

    Statement Not upheld Other 30-Nov-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault by a Council, an NHS Trust and a Mental Health Trust about the care they arranged or provided to someone with Parkinson's Disease following several hospital admissions. The Ombudsmen found fault by a GP Practice in its assessment of a patient and in its recording about medication reviews. However, the faults did not cause the patient harm and there was no fault with the clinical care. The Ombudsmen made recommendations to the Practice to apologise to the patient's family for the distress caused by the faults and to review this case and make service improvements.

  • Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (17 007 590)

    Statement Not upheld Other 26-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council and the Trust dealt with his late aunt's discharge arrangements from hospital to a nursing home. He also complained about the Trust's communication about his aunt's care and treatment and the Council's communication with the coroner following his aunt's death. Mr B said the actions caused him avoidable distress and affected his aunt. The Ombudsmen found the Trust and the Council accepted there were at fault in some areas when responding to Mr B's complaints. The Council and the Trust improved and remedied any injustice before
    Mr B complained to the Ombudsmen. Therefore, there is nothing more the Ombudsmen can achieve.

  • North East Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group (17 005 851)

    Statement Not upheld Other 21-Nov-2018

    Summary: I do not consider there was any fault in the way the Trust and the Partnership Trust decided not to refer Y for an autism assessment in June 2016. This was despite a lack of formal commissioning of autism assessments at that time. However, I consider the Trust took too long to send Mrs X the write up of the June 2016 screening which caused her frustration.

  • Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (16 010 515)

    Statement Upheld Other 22-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mrs T complained about the way the Council and the Trust dealt with her late father's discharge from hospital. She also complained about the care and support he received at home after he left hospital. Mrs T said this had an adverse impact on her father's wellbeing and caused her avoidable distress. The Ombudsmen found no fault in the way the Council and the Trust dealt with the discharge arrangements. The Council did not properly monitor the care agencies it commissioned to provide care to the complainant's father which resulted in him receiving some poor care. The Trust did not consider completing a checklist before deciding the complainant's father was not eligible for healthcare funding. The Council and the Trust have agreed to the Ombudsmen recommendations to apologise to the complainant and improve their procedures. The Council will pay
    Mr D's estate and Mrs T a financial remedy to acknowledge the injustice caused.