Council and NHS trust to pay £27k over errors in care for double amputee
A city council and an NHS trust have agreed to pay out more than £27,000 to a double amputee with significant mental health needs who was wrongly denied appropriate care.
A joint investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PSHO) and the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) concluded that the woman had been left without the right care package for more than a year.
The situation arose because of a dispute between Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, a mental health trust.
The woman, Ms D, had – prior to the amputation of her legs – received an annual personal budget of approximately £7,000, to help her with her mental health problem of moderate to severe depression. This budget was funded by the NHS.
After the amputation, Ms D developed a blood disorder and problems with her vascular system. As a result her personal budget had to be re-assessed.
However, the city council and the mental health trust were unable to decide how much support she should receive.
Ms D was subsequently left without sufficient funds for more than 14 months. During this period she only received a basic care package amounting to two visits a day by agency workers.
This meant that Ms D was mainly housebound, leaving her more isolated and depressed. She found it difficult to use public transport and had to spend money on taxis to go to medical appointments as well as social and voluntary activities.
Ms D’s clinical psychologist, her physiotherapist and prosthetist wrote a joint letter to the local authority saying that the delay was having a “significant adverse impact” on her “physical and psychological wellbeing”.
The letter stated that Ms D’s mental health history was well-known to the council and that her health was at significant risk of deteriorating further if there was no agreement on her support package within a reasonable timeframe. Her GP and her clinical psychologist sent further letters raising concerns about the delay.
Her complaint to the NHS trust was upheld, but she was still forced to complain to the LGO as her budget had still – four months later – not been decided.
The Ombudsmen’s investigation found that Ms D’s personal budget had run out and she had been left without an appropriate budget for more than 14 months.
In their joint report the PSHO and the LGO recommended that the council and the NHS trust:
- Write to Ms D to apologise for the faults identified in their investigation and for the distress caused.
- Reimburse her £14,000 for the costs she incurred in buying support that should properly have come from her Self Directed Support (SDS) budget, covering the period January 2014 to February 2015 inclusive. The £14,000 figure was what the ombudsmen services estimated she would have received over this period, if her budget had been decided in time.
- Agree her monthly SDS budget as a matter of urgency and ensure that payments are made within three months at the latest and backdated appropriately.
- Pay her £12,000 to acknowledge the impact on her of not having an adequate SDS budget in place. “This figure was arrived at after considering her vulnerability, the impact on her daily life, and the length of time she has been affected."
- Pay her a further £1,000 to acknowledge the avoidable stress and frustration from having to continue to pursue her complaint.
- Produce an action plan within three months addressing the faults identified by the Ombudsmen’s’ investigation, and setting out what action has and will be taken to address them.
Both the city council and the NHS trust have accepted the recommendations in full.
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Julie Mellor said: "Even though this complaint was upheld by the trust and council, they failed to put things right, which meant that a vulnerable woman was left without the right care package for more than a year
"Both the council and the trust should have acted sooner to prevent the unnecessary distress experienced by this woman."
Local Government Ombudsman Dr Jane Martin said: "This is an example of two organisations, with an important role in supporting vulnerable people, being unable to communicate properly and take a co-ordinated approach to provide suitable assistance for this woman.
“I am pleased that the council and the trust have agreed to our recommendations and will now produce an action plan to ensure better working relationships and a more joined up strategy for dealing with cases such as this. I hope this will ensure that similar situations will not recur."