Case 200802231 & 200802232 - Cardiff & Vale University LHB

Summary

Mrs P complained that her adult son (Mr P), who had advanced Huntington’s disease, had been in hospital unnecessarily for two years having been admitted for what she had understood would be a two week period of rehabilitation. Mrs P was concerned about the proposed plans for her son’s discharge and future care as although he had previously expressed a wish to stay at home, the NHS services with responsibility for Mr P felt that it was not possible to care for him safely at home with the resources then available. Mrs P also disputed an assertion that Mr P needed 24 hour care and complained that the reasons she was given for Mr P being admitted to hospital were not accurate.

Turning to Mrs P’s complaints about the length of time her son was in hospital and the arrangements for his future care, the Ombudsman found that there had been a failure to carry out adequate assessments, a failure to take into account all the relevant facts of the case, and that there had been excessive delay. Had comprehensive assessments been done within a reasonable time, and had all the relevant facts been adequately considered, then it was possible that Mr P would have been able to return home sooner than he did. The Ombudsman upheld this part of the complaint. He recommended that Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board (as it now is) should apologise to Mrs P for the failings identified in the report and pay her £1,500 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to in pursuing the complaint and the inconvenience she was put to in visiting Mr P every day to feed him (as the hospital staff were unable to do this). The Ombudsman also recommended that the Health Board remind staff of the need to carry out full assessments, take specialist advice where necessary, and consider, where appropriate, assisting carers to access relevant training. The Health Board agreed to implement the recommendations.

The Ombudsman found that there had been some confusion about the reasons for Mr P’s admission, but the evidence did not suggest that Mrs P was misled. He therefore did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Case 200802231 & 200802232 - Cardiff & Vale University LHB (PDF: 370.17Kb)

To view PDF documents you will need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader .