Summary
C complained about the mental health care and treatment their late sibling (A) received at Gartnavel General Hospital. C complained that A was misdiagnosed and received inappropriate treatment. C complained that A was insufficiently supervised, as they were able to leave the hospital on a number of occasions. C also complained that A was discharged when they were still unwell. C believed there had been a focus on discharging A rather than ensuring their condition improved.
We took independent advice from a consultant psychiatrist. We found that during each admission, A's care and treatment was reasonable and appropriate given their presenting symptoms. We found that the changes in A's diagnosis reflected a better understanding of their symptoms and presentation over time. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
With regard to the complaint about supervision, we found that the level of supervision was appropriate andthat there was no clinical justification for any enhanced observation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
In relation to the complaint about A's discharge from hospital, we noted that difficult circumstances to do with A remaining in the ward was contributing to an escalation in their presentation. We found that the decisions to discharge A after the first and second admissions were reasonable. There was evidence of discharge planning with appropriate follow-ups being put in place. The decision to discharge after the third admission was more complicated, as A was discharged into police custody after their behaviour escalated. We found that under the circumstances this was reasonable, noting that follow-up arrangements were made with support agencies. We therefore did not uphold this complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201901611 as a PDF (24.55 KB) Updated: July 20, 2022