Summary
C complained that social work failed to reasonably assess A’s needs following a hospital admission, in relation to whether they required 24-hour care, and C’s concerns that social work ignored clinical opinions.
We took independent advice from a social worker. We considered that it was reasonable for social work to have concluded initially that A did not technically meet the criteria for residential care and was functionally fit to be discharged home with a support package. While we noted that the opinions of others were taken into account in arriving at this conclusion, we considered that there was a failure to fully examine the emotional impact on A of potentially being discharged. The council had already acknowledged that there could have been more detailed discussion with A’s GP and further exploration of the views of a specialist nurse from the psychiatry team, which we agreed with. We also considered that some wording used in the social work assessment to describe A’s reactions could have been perceived to lack empathy and compassion. We upheld this complaint.
A suffered a stroke three days after the initial social work assessment was concluded. They were in temporary accommodation at the time, awaiting further assessment. It was subsequently agreed that A required 24-hour care. They remained in the temporary facility until their transfer to a care home, but died a month later. C complained that a delay in social work re-assessing A delayed their transfer to a care home, which meant the transfer took place during lockdown when the family were unable to support A with the move. The council advised that A was re-assessed in a timely manner once a care home vacancy became available. We considered that it was reasonable for the assessment to be updated once a vacancy arose and were satisfied that the delay was due to a lack of available places and not due to a failing on the part of social work. We did not uphold this complaint.
Recommendations
What we asked the organisation to do in this case: Apologise to C for failing to give enough weight to the emotional impact on A of potentially being discharged and for the wording used to describe A’s reactions. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
What we said should change to put things right in future: Appropriate weight should be given to the emotional impact of discharge on clients. Social workers should be aware of the impact of language used and where it may be perceived to lack empathy and compassion.
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 202003481 as a PDF (26.79 KB) Updated: October 19, 2022