Summary
Ms C complained about the care and treatment of her late mother (Mrs A). In 2009, Mrs A received treatment for leg ulcers and various symptoms relating to her underlying vascular condition (condition of the blood vessels). She was admitted to hospital in July 2009 for emergency treatment, including an operation, and discharged in September. After-care services were provided by the board's rapid response team for 11 days after discharge. Mrs A continued to receive treatment in the community for her condition. She was readmitted to hospital that November where she remained until her death in January 2010.
Ms C said that the initial discharge arrangements were inadequate because the after-care services had not been planned in advance. She said that after-care services were essential given the nature of her mother's condition and the length of stay in hospital. She said that the board only arranged services from the rapid response team because she asked about this when she collected Mrs A from hospital. Ms C also complained that the after-care services were inadequate, saying that Mrs A did not receive assistance with personal care, cooking, feeding, medication, getting to the bathroom or physiotherapy.
We found, given the importance in involving family in the process, that the planning and implementation of Mrs A's discharge was deficient because Ms C had not been involved. In all other respects, it was reasonable. We concluded that overall, the board's planning was unreasonable due to the lack of involvement of Mrs A's daughter. However, we found that the records showed that the after-care was comprehensive, individualised and reasonable.
Recommendations
We recommended that the board: bring our letter to the attention of relevant staff to ensure lessons are learned; and apologise to Ms C for the failures identified.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201003618 as a PDF (22.58 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018