This report is into a complaint by Mr & Mrs M concerning the treatment of the disabled daughter by their GP, the out of hours SEEDS services and the PCT Trust of the hospital their daughter was taken to. No service failure was found with regard to the GP; however the SEEDS doctors failings did constitute service failure. The PCT's handling of the complaint had lesser failures and did not constitute maladadministration
This report concerns a case claiming for funding for care under s. 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Ombudsmen found evidence of some failures of the part of the concerned Trust and Council, but in the absence of any consequent in justice that could be identified, did not uphold any of the complaints
This publication contains an article by Dr Richard Kirkham, Lecturer in the School of Law at Sheffield University, on the history of the post of Parliamentary Ombudsman to mark the 40th anniversary of its establishment, together with a foreword written by the current postholder, Ann Abraham. The paper discusses the origins of the Office and its creation through the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as well as its existing and future role, the changing landscape of the administrative justice system and possible amendments to Office's powers. The paper concludes that "a few required amendments aside, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act remains a good piece of legislation and the constitution is much stronger for the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As well as improving the power of the citizen to gain redress, as was originally intended, Parliament itself has gained a valuable tool in the ongoing process of calling the government to account.
These are the reports of two cases which were jointly investigated by the Health Services and Local Government Ombudsmen,, both of which involve the provision of services by local council and by NHS trusts and both, to some extent, concern the actions of staff working in mental health services. The first involved Enfield Council and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust & Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust. The other case involved Havering and the North East London Mental Health Trust. Neither case was upheld in respect of the Councils though partly upheld in respect of North East London Mental Health Trust
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman responsible for investigating complaints regarding whether governmental departments, agencies and some other public bodies in the United Kingdom, and the National Health Service (NHS) in England, have acted properly or fairly, or have provided poor service. This is the first report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman of the new 2008-09 session, and sets out 20 cases that the Ombudsman believes illustrate good and poor practice in dealing with complaints from the public, and further demonstrate how things might have been handled differently if the public body concerned had in the mind the Ombudsman's three sets of principles on: good administration; remedy; and complaint handling.
the Ombudsman's review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2009-10 , third report of the Health Service Commissioner for England, session 2010-11
the Ombudsman's review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2009-10 , third report of the Health Service Commissioner for England, session 2010-11
This report is the first in an annual series and covers the first full year of the new complaint handling system for the NHS. The Ombudsman warns that the NHS is missing a rich source of free and readily available information about patients by failing to listen and learn from complaints. The report's scope includes previously unpublished data about the number and type of complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2009-10 for every trust and strategic health authority region in England. It shows how many complaints were received and the outcomes of the complaints investigated. It reveals that 15,579 health complaints were closed by the Ombudsman in 2009-10 and that the two most common reasons for complainants to be dissatisfied with the NHS were failings in clinical care and treatment and the attitude of staff - a poor explanation or an incomplete response were the most common reasons given for dissatisfaction with NHS complaint handling. It presents a perspective not seen before: a national picture of what happens when mistakes occur and the NHS fails to put things right and highlights how often the Ombudsman needs to get involved just to ensure the NHS apologises when a mistake has been made. As the report shows, poor complaint handling can make a difficult situation worse for patients and their families. Poorly handled complaints can also escalate, creating unnecessary demands on NHS resources whilst resolving complaints effectively need not be costly. The report also features patients' stories taken from the Ombudsman's case files
This is an investigation, carried out jointly by the Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman, into serious complaints about the support provided to a vulnerable person with long history involvement with mental health services, living independently in the community, by 5 Boroughs Partnership Trust and St Helen's Metropolitan Borough Council. The complaints, made by the vulnerable person's cousin, were: that the consultant psychiatrist failed to respond appropriately; that there was no support in claiming for welfare benefits; that care plans were not implemented; and that no one had responded appropriately to developing signs of risk. The first two of the complaints were not upheld but it was found that the Trust and Council had failed in their joint responsibility
the Ombudsman's review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2010-11 , tenth report of the Health Service Commissioner for England session 2010-12
the Ombudsman's review of complaint handling by the NHS in England 2010-11 , tenth report of the Health Service Commissioner for England session 2010-12
The Health Ombudsman resolved a total of 15,186 complaints about the NHS in England in 2010-11. This report shows how, at a local level, the NHS is still not dealing adequately with the most straightforward matters. As the case studies illustrate, minor disputes over unanswered telephones or mix-ups over appointments can end up with the Ombudsman because of knee-jerk responses by NHS staff and poor complaint handling. While these matters may seem insignificant alongside complex clinical judgments and treatment, they contribute to a patient's overall experience of NHS care. The escalation of such small, everyday incidents represents a hidden cost, adding to the burden on clinical practitioners and taking up time for health service managers, while causing added difficulty for people struggling with illness or caring responsibilities. Two particular themes stand out this year. Poor communication - one of the most common reasons for complaints in the last year - can have a serious, direct impact on patients' care and can unnecessarily exclude their families from a full awareness of the patient's condition or prognosis. Secondly, in a small but increasing number of cases, a failure to resolve disagreements between patients and their GP has led to their removal from the GP's patient list - often without the required warning or the opportunity for both sides to talk about what happened. As GPs prepare to take on greater responsibility for commissioning patient services, this report provides an early warning that some are failing to handle even the most basic complaints appropriately.
The office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman undertakes independent investigations into complaints that government departments, a range of other public bodies in the UK, and the NHS in England, have not acted properly or fairly or have provided a poor service to the public. This annual report covers the work, achievements and performance of the Office for the year 2005-06, during which time it had to issue a report to Parliament about injustice caused by maladministration in relation to the ex gratia compensation scheme for British groups interned in the Far East during the Second World War (A debt of honour, HCP 324, session 2005-06, ISBN 0102934673).
This report relates to a stroke patient who died of a pulmonary embolism. The patient's niece complained that poor care and lack of nutrition led to the patient's early death. The Ombudsmen decided that the Council and PCT in question did not act in line with recognised quality standards or established good practice and that the care the patient received amounted to service failure. However, they did not find that the poor nutrition and hydration could be linked to the patient's death
Mrs L complained about the care that her father, the late Mr M, received at a Wakefield Metropolitan District Council-funded care home, Hazel Garth and from a visiting community nurse funded by NHS Wakefield District Primary Care Trust. Mr M was visited by the nurse on 13 October 2009 to deal with a problem with a catheter. Later that day he became unwell and was taken to hospital, where he was treated for urinary sepsis as well as a grade 4 necrotic (dead tissue) pressure ulcer on his sacrum. He was treated with antibiotics and recovered somewhat, but he died on 23 November 2009. Mrs L was not satisfied with the responses to her complaints to the Council and the Trust, and complained to the Ombudsmen. Their investigations find service failure by both Council and Trust for the care provided in the home and by the nurse. They also found failings in record keeping at the home and maladministration by both Council and Trust in dealing with Mrs L's complaints.The Council and the Trust's successor (Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group) are instructed, within three months: to write to Mrs L apologising for the service failures and distress caused by the maladministration; to compensate her for the poor complaint handling; and to prepare action plans that describe what they have done to ensure they have learnt the lessons from the failings identified and what they have done or plan to do to avoid a recurrence.
The UK Border Agency and their predecessors have consistently generated a large number of complaints to the Ombudsman, not just in terms of the number of complaints received, but also the number of complaints accepted for investigation and the high proportion which are upheld. The complaints are mostly from people in this country who are facing long delays awaiting a decision on their application to the Agency. Applicants ought to be told what to expect and be safe and properly supported while awaiting a decision and that decision ought to be 'fast and fair'. Delays by the Agency in deciding such applications mean that people who should be given permission to stay are often left unable to support themselves and uncertain as to their future; and those who should be removed remain here, with their chances of eventually being allowed to stay increasing because of the Agency's delay. The Agency's biggest problem is the huge backlog of old asylum applications which has built up over a number of years, leaving hundreds of thousands of applicants waiting for years for a final decision. This report contains summaries of 11 cases which are illustrative of the complaints referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the UK Border Agency. They involve applications for asylum; as well as the Agency's core immigration and nationality work, and applications for residence cards, which confirm rights under European law.
Eighth Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Session 2010-12; Ninth Report of the Health Service Commissioner for England Session 2010-12
Eighth Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Session 2010-12; Ninth Report of the Health Service Commissioner for England Session 2010-12
This report contains summaries of five recently completed Ombudsman investigations: three are complaints about the NHS and two are about government agencies. They all involved poor service to people with disabilities. The case summaries demonstrate the difficulties faced by disabled people in accessing public services; the lack of awareness in some public bodies of their statutory obligations, leading to poor services and unfair treatment; and the role that the Ombudsman can play both in righting individual wrongs and driving improvements in public services
a report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on an investigation of a complaint about the Ministry of Defence and the Service Personnel & Veterans Agency, seventh report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration session 2010-2012
a report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on an investigation of a complaint about the Ministry of Defence and the Service Personnel & Veterans Agency, seventh report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration session 2010-2012
This report concerns a complaint by Mr A (now deceased) and his siblings, who were British civilians interned by the Japanese in Singapore in 1945. In 2000 they applied to the compensation scheme set up by the British Government to recognise the 'debt of honour' owed by the UK to British prisoners of war and civilian internees. They were initially denied compensation because they did not have a close enough link to the UK to qualify, but received a £500 payment and an apology following the Ombudsman's intervention. In 2007, the MoD set up a further scheme to compensate those whose applications to the original scheme were wrongly rejected. Mr A's family was invited to apply to this second scheme, but their application was refused and they were told that the previous apology and payment had been given to them in error. The investigation found that Mr A and his siblings were subjected to prolonged and aggravated distress by the British Government during the 10 years that they struggled to resolve their compensation claims with the MoD. The MoD mismanaged the administration of the second compensation scheme and had incorrectly and offensively retracted a previous apology issued to them. The Secretary of State for Defence should apologise personally to the family and pay them the compensation wrongly denied to them (£4,000 each) plus a further £5,000 each in recognition of the distress they suffered. The MoD has accepted all the recommendations and will launch its own review of what went wrong
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.