Source · SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)

Tayside NHS Board

SPSO (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) Partly Upheld Reference 201600908 Sector Health Category admission / discharge / transfer procedures Decided 01 August 2017

View NHS Tayside scorecard

Full decision

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the board had failed to properly assess his mother (Mrs A) before she was discharged from Perth Royal Infirmary. He said that, as a result of this, Mrs A had to go into a care home for full-time care, which had cost the family over £20,000 in charges. We took independent advice from a consultant geriatrician. We found that Mrs A had been discharged without being adequately assessed. There was no evidence of a multi-disciplinary team discussion or of adequate occupational therapy input in the discharge planning process. In addition, we found that that the physiotherapy and nursing notes indicated that she should have had further assessment. Mr C had also raised concerns several times to different members of staff about Mrs A's ability to return home. We found that Mrs A should not have been discharged on the day that she was. In view of this, we upheld the complaint. However, it was likely that she would have been reviewed again a week later and it was possible that a reasonable decision could have been made at that time that she could be discharged. This could have been either to her own home or to a nursing home.

Mr C also complained that the board had not informed him of, or acted in accordance with, the relevant Scottish Government guidance on intermediary care following hospital discharge. The relevant guidance is normally used where care homes are being considered. In view of the fact that Mrs A had been discharged home, we found that there was no need to use the guidance. Although we found that staff had not taken sufficient account of Mr C's views at the time of Mrs A's discharge, on balance, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained to us about the board's handling of his complaint. We found that the board had delayed in responding to Mr C and that the communication with him about a meeting had not been clear. In addition, the board's response said that it had been reasonable to discharge Mrs A. In view of these failings, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the board: issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to appropriately assess Mrs A before she was discharged from hospital; reimburse Mrs A for the first seven days of her nursing home costs; provide evidence to us that they have taken steps to ensure that patients in the hospital receive care in line with Standard 5 of the 'Scottish Standard of Care for Hip Fracture Patients' in relation to discharge planning; issue a written apology to Mr C for their failings in relation to the handling of his complaint; feed back our findings on the handling of Mr C's complaint to the staff involved; and provide evidence to this office that they have taken steps to ensure that multi-disciplinary team meetings are documented in the records of patients.

Related reading

View Decision Report 201600908 as a PDF (14.65 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

View original on SPSO (Scottish Publ… website

Other decisions involving Tayside NHS Board

Reference Date Summary Outcome
202412006 01 Feb 2026 C complained on behalf of their child (A) who is in their late teens. C complained that Child and Adolescent … Upheld
202500322 01 Feb 2026 C complained about the care and treatment provided to their late spouse (A) during their admission to hospital. A was … Partly Upheld
202405136 01 Dec 2025 C complained about the care and treatment that they received during an admission to hospital. C attended A&E and the … Upheld
202301846 01 Sep 2025 C complained about the treatment provided to their late parent (A) when they attended hospital with shortness of breath and … Partly Upheld
202310542 01 Aug 2025 C complained about the treatment provided to their partner (A) when they were admitted to hospital. A presented to the … Not Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation