Mr S, who had been diagnosed with mental health problems, had treatment from one trust and longterm supportive care from another. However, neither trust assessed his ability to consent. This meant his daughter thought his condition could have been improved.
What happened
Mr S had a long history of psychiatric illness, and his sight was also failing. Doctors referred him to Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the eye hospital for treatment, but he refused to give consent for the operation. He had a different operation but his sight continued to deteriorate.
During this time, and over the following 18 months, Mr S was under the care of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, the mental health trust, where he began to lose his independence. He was allegedly exploited in the community.
Neither Trust formally assessed Mr S's ability either to consent to treatment, or to manage his finances.
What we found
Both Trusts should have formally assessed Mr S's mental capacity and the mental health trust had many opportunities to do this over a long period of time. However, because we could not say what the result of such an assessment might have been, it was possible that Mr S would have made the same choices. Therefore, we partly upheld the complaints about both Trusts.
Putting it right
The mental health trust apologised to Mr S's daughter and agreed to pay her £1,250 compensation. Both Trusts agreed to prepare action plans to address the failings identified.
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Greater London
Not applicable
Apology