Festive closure

We will close at 5pm on Tuesday 24 December 2024 and reopen at 9am Friday 3 January 2025. You can still submit complaints through our online form, but we won't respond until we reopen.

Decision Report 202106302

  • Case ref:
    202106302
  • Date:
    August 2023
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Health and Social Care Partnership
  • Sector:
    Health and Social Care
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Standard of care

Summary

C complained about the care provided to their elderly parent (A). A had to remain in bed to allow several pressure sores to be treated. To assist with moving A out of bed and changing A's position, a manual handling assessment was requested. C felt that there was an unreasonable delay in conducting this assessment and that when it was carried out, the equipment was provided too slowly and was not fit for purpose.

The partnership responded to C but denied acting unreasonably, or that there had been an undue delay. C responded to this challenging the accuracy of the partnership's response. The partnership issued a second response which acknowledged the first response had been inaccurate. However, they maintained that staff had acted reasonably, and that A had not been put at risk by the handling equipment used to move them.

We found that there had been a delay in providing a manual handling assessment caused by the referral not being initially received, which was compounded by staff absence on leave. However the partnership were able to demonstrate they had already addressed this through the recruitment of additional staff. We also found that the partnership's procedures required them to review the suitability of manual handling equipment after it was delivered to the patient, as well as ensure care staff were competent at using the equipment properly. This was not done, and we found it was unreasonable for the partnership not to have followed their own procedures. We also found that it was unreasonable for the partnership to have issued a stage 2 complaint response which was inaccurate, as their follow-up response acknowledged that it had not reflected the partnership's electronic records accurately. Therefore, we upheld C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

  • Apologise to C for failings identified in this report. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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.

Updated: August 16, 2023