Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1982/83 : selected investigations completed April- September 1982.

  • Great Britain. Health Service Commissioner.
Date:
1983
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Health Service Commissioner : first report for session 1982/83 : selected investigations completed April- September 1982. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/192 page 19
    daughter left the Unit the second time because she would not have been able to tell her anything positive about her whereabouts and had thought it likely that she would go home anyway. She did not telephone the com- plainant following the call from Mr A as she had been led to believe that he was going to tell the complainant that her daughter was with them. 12. I have seen the nursing record for 7 August when the daughter was admitted to the ward and this notes simply that she ‘spent the day on the ward yesterday but did not go home at 9 pm. Spent the night [with] ex-patient [Miss A]’. There is no reference to any medication being given to her on 6 August, either in the nursing or the medical notes, nor is there any drug sheet in her name relating to that date. 13. When the complainant first complained to the AHA on 8 August 1980 she received a reply from the Sector Administrator (the SA) which said inter alia that ‘it would have been better if the NS had then tele- phoned you to let you know what had happened. . . I do realise, however, how worrying this event must have been for you and apologise that we perhaps did not keep you informed as we might have done’. The SA also assured the complainant that her daughter did not receive any medication and emphasised that she was not a minor and she was therefore ‘deemed in the eyes of the law to be responsible for her own actions, and it was, therefore, impossible for us to act against her wishes and deprive her of her liberty ’. Findings 14. I have been unable to establish whether or not a sedative, tranquil- liser or other medication was prescribed for the daughter on 6 August when she visited the Unit but, on the evidence, I think it unlikely. It is not dis- puted that she left the Unit on her own late at night; but whereas the complainant believes her daughter’s subsequent claim that she had wanted to stay there, the NS maintains that she demanded to be let out; and, in the light of other information about her behaviour, I accept the evidence of the NS. I am satisfied that the staff did make every effort to persuade her to stay; and, as the SA explained, the daughter could not be detained against her will except under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. I cannot question the decisions taken by the DS and the NS in the exer- cise of their professional judgment that it was not appropriate to refer her to the medical staff for this purpose. As to the complaint that the com- plainant and her husband were not kept informed of their daughter’s whereabouts, the NS has agreed that she probably should have telephoned the complainant again when her daughter left the Unit the second time (though, in fact, she would have had little of any consequence to add to what they had already been told since her whereabouts were still not known). In view of the obvious concern of the complainant, I think she should have been informed direct by the hospital as soon as they knew where she was. I think it wrong that, in circumstances such as these, the onus should have been left upon a third party to pass on a message of such importance to the parents. Lo
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3