Summary
Mr C complained that the board failed to provide him with reasonable care and treatment for his mental health problems. He detailed a number of areas about which he was concerned, and he was also unhappy about the way in which the board handled his complaint. He said that the consultant concerned had lied in his response.
During our investigation, we took independent advice from our medical adviser who is a consultant psychiatrist. We found that that the frequency of the boards contact with Mr C was reasonable. We also found that the frequent use of hospital admissions and the fact that a large team were involved in his assessment and treatment were examples of good clinical practice. Although some of the clinics that Mr C was to attend were cancelled, we did not consider that this was excessive. We also found that it was reasonable to arrange clinics in locations that would benefit the greatest number of patients. However, we found that Mr C had been prescribed with large doses of medication that were not appropriate for the disorder he had been diagnosed with. This led to him being over-sedated. For this reason, we upheld his complaint about care and treatment, although we noted that the board had since carried out a review of his medication. We did not uphold the complaint about complaints handling, as we found that the boards response was reasonable and we did not consider that the consultant had lied.
Recommendations
We recommended that the board: issue a written apology for their failings in relation to prescribing medication, which led to Mr C's over-sedation.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201102397 as a PDF (12.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018