Mr A complained about Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board’s (“the Health Board”) handling of his complaint, and his request for a second opinion from an alternative venue.
The Ombudsman found that it was unclear why the Health Board did not proceed with Mr A’s complaint on 5 November 2024, and that it did not explain what it required to proceed, or explain that his complaint had been closed. She also found that an offer of a second opinion from an alternative venue had been made in writing, which had not been fulfilled. She found that 2 letters sent to Mr A in August 2024 had been contradictory, and no explanation had been offered for this. She found that the Health Board had not explained to Mr A that he would be offered a second opinion initially from the same service. And finally, she found that the Health Board gave contradictory information to Mr A as to whether he was entitled to a second opinion.
The Ombudsman sought and gained the Health Board’s agreement, within 8 weeks, to contact Mr A and apologise for not communicating clearly about what it required to proceed with his complaint, or for explaining that his complaint had been closed, apologise for contradictory information given in letters received in August 2024, and for not sending a Part 3 Mental Health Measure letter, apologise for not explaining to Mr A that a second opinion was being arranged for the same venue, and apologise for the conflicting information given to Mr A about his entitlement to a second opinion. The Health Board also agreed to, within 12 weeks, arrange for a second opinion at an alternative venue as offered in the letter of 28 February 2025.