Decision Report 201600270

  • Case ref:
    201600270
  • Date:
    November 2017
  • Body:
    Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board
  • Sector:
    Health
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    communication / staff attitude / dignity / confidentiality

Summary

Ms C made a number of complaints to us about the care and treatment she received from the board's community psychiatric nurse (CPN) service. Her complaints included concerns about the allocation of a CPN and discharge arrangements. She also complained about the board's handling of her complaint.

We took independent advice from a mental health nurse and from a consultant psychiatrist. Ms C complained that the board had arranged a meeting without her consent after she made a complaint about a support worker. We found that the board's records indicated that Ms C had agreed to the meeting and we did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C also complained that the board had unreasonably allocated her a CPN that she could not work with. We found that it had been reasonable for the board to appoint this member of staff as Ms C's CPN. We did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C complained that the board refused her support from a CPN that had previously been agreed. We found that staff had met Ms C to discuss the support she needed from CPNs. They then arranged to speak to her consultant psychiatrist to clarify what had been agreed. The psychiatrist said that this matter should be discussed at her next review meeting. We considered this had been reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

Ms C complained that she had then been discharged from the CPN service. We found that given the support she was receiving from other agencies at that time, there was no need for CPN involvement in her care. We did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained to us about the board's handling of her complaint. She said that she considered that the board should have contacted her mental health officer to discuss her complaints. We found that it had not been necessary for the board to do so to investigate the complaints. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Updated: March 13, 2018