Summary
Miss C, who is an independent advocate, complained to us on behalf of her client (Miss A). Miss A had previously had input from the board's speech and language therapy (SaLT) and learning disabilities teams, and was looking for further input from them. The board, however, did not provide this. They said that the SaLT team could not identify a clinical risk to Miss A that would benefit from further intervention, and that the learning disabilities team had identified behavioural family therapy as being appropriate, which was begun. Miss C complained about these decisions.
The board investigated the complaints but remained of the view that their decisions had been reasonable. Miss C then raised her complaints with us.
We obtained independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is an experienced mental health professional. He read Miss A's relevant records and considered the situation carefully. He explained that the use of both services has a particular purpose, and that the board had to take this into account. He agreed that the way the decisions were taken was correct, and that the board's decision not to offer further direct engagement was reasonable. We accepted his advice and did not uphold Miss C's complaints.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201305371 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018