Summary
C's sibling (A) is a permanent resident of a care home. A was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital with a bowel obstruction. A was initially admitted to the acute receiving unit, then transferred to a ward, before being discharged two evenings later. C had concerns about the care and treatment A received, the way the board sought information about A and their decision to discharge A. The board upheld some parts of C's complaint, provided apologies and undertook some process changes to address these matters. However, the board concluded that their actions overall had been reasonable. C was unhappy with the board's response and brought their complaint to us.
We found that the board provided reasonable care and treatment to A, that the prescription and administration of laxatives was reasonable in the circumstances, that the board's seeking of information about A was reasonable and that the decision to discharge A was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaints. However, we were concerned about the board's failure to respond to matters that had been complained about and where their initial failure to respond had been highlighted to them. We made a recommendation to the board in light of this under section 16G of the SPSO Act 2002, which requires the Ombudsman to monitor and promote best practice in relation to complaints handling.
Recommendations
In relation to complaints handling, we recommended: In line with their Model Complaints Handling Procedure, the board should be clear from the start of the investigation stage exactly what they are investigating.
We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201807763 as a PDF (25.6 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020