Summary
C, who has a disability, attended hospital to have an operation. C was signed-off as medically fit for discharge, however, C did not consider that they could return to their home, which is privately owned. C complained that there was a failure to assess if their home met their needs because adaptations had been carried out which were not suitable. C considered that there was a failure to keep them advised about plans for discharge. C also considered that there had been a failure to assess what support they would require upon discharge. C considered that alternative accommodation should have been provided.
We found that an assessment stated that C was able to access their home following the adaptations carried out. We noted that the partnership had offered to carry out a further assessment on a few occasions, to give C a second opinion, and that C had refused to take part in this. We found reasonable steps had been taken by the partnership to carry out an assessment and offer a second opinion. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
C had refused to return home from hospital, despite the partnership informing C that they were medically fit for discharge and explaining the reasons that C should go home. We considered that C had been advised of the plans to discharge them and that they had been reassured about what process would follow in the event that they were to be discharged. We noted that a discharge meeting would be set up, a plan for discharge made and an assessment of C's ability to manage at home would be carried out. As access to the property was reasonable, and C did not have any personal care needs, we considered that the partnership's position, that C did not require alternative accommodation because they could access their home, to be reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201809429 as a PDF (24.53 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020