The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A care home providing care on behalf of the Council, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms X to notify her of her father’s deteriorating health and his subsequent death. There is no fault in the care home then notifying the second recorded contact.
The complaint
Ms X complains a care home, commissioned by the Council, failed to inform her of her father’s declining health and subsequent death.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have: considered the complaint and discussed it with Ms X; considered the correspondence between Ms X, the care home and the Council; considered the complaint responses from care home and the Council; made enquiries of the Council and considered the response; offered Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.
What I found
Mr Y had lived at the care home since March 2019. He had been diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease some years previously. He sadly passed away at the care home on 17 January 2021.
There were complex family dynamics within Mr Y’s family. There was no power of attorney or deputyship in place. The Council says numerous family members claimed to have power of attorney, but none were able to provide evidence to support this.
Ms X says she was Mr Y’s next-of-kin, and the first point of contact. For a time, she lived abroad and corresponded with the care home by email. On returning to the UK, she visited Mr Y when possible.
Ms X says, Ms W, Mr Y’s stepdaughter, previously claimed to be Mr Y’s next-of-kin and claimed to hold power of attorney. Ms X says she briefed the care home about this when Mr Y moved into the care home.
The care home reported Ms W visited Mr Y regularly.
I have had sight of the care home’s contact record for Mr Y. It confirms Ms X to be the primary contact and Ms W to be the second.
I have had sight of a letter the care home sent to Ms X which acknowledges a member of staff changed the contact record for Mr Y in error during a systems change, and recorded Ms W to be the next-of-kin. The care home apologised for its error.
The care home telephoned Ms X on two occasions to notify her of Mr Y’s declining health. One of the calls made on 13 January 2021 was made by a carer aware of the family dynamics, and who had agreed to contact Ms X in the event of any concern about Mr Y. Both calls to Ms X were unanswered. Voicemails were left asking her to contact the care home. Ms X did not respond so the care home contacted Ms W to inform her of Mr Y’s declining health.
The care home telephoned Ms X to inform her of Mr Y’s death. The call was unanswered. No voicemail was left. The care home notified Ms W and made no further attempt to contact Ms X.
Ms X says she only found out about Mr Y’s death via a social media post ten days later which caused her much anguish and heartache. She says Mr Y’s belongings have not been returned to her and she does not know their whereabouts.
The Council has confirmed Mr Y’s belongings are still at the care home. These can be released to Ms X at her convenience. Ms X can contact the care home directly to arrange collection.
Analysis From the information I have seen it is clear there were complex family dynamics of which the care home was aware.
I am satisfied the care home attempted to contact Ms X to notify her of Mr Y’s deteriorating health and his subsequent death. When it had no success reaching her it contacted the second recorded contact, Ms W. I cannot criticise it for doing so.
In respect of Mr Y’s death, it is must have been most distressing for Ms X to learn of Mr Y’s death in the way she did. The care home telephoned Ms X at the time of Mr Y’s death. The call was unanswered. A voicemail could have been left asking Ms X to contact the care home urgently, but I am not persuaded this would have been responded to, given Ms X had not responded to the two previous voicemails left.
Under the circumstances it was reasonable for the care home to contact the second contact, Ms W.
Mr Y’s care placement was commissioned by the Council; therefore, it was responsible for Mr Y’s care and the actions of the care home. Care homes do not routinely inform Councils that a resident’s health is deteriorating so I cannot find fault by the Council.
The care home notified the Council of Mr Y’s death. At this point a family member, Ms W, had been informed so there was no further action required by the Council.
Final decision
There is no evidence of fault by the care home or the Council. The care home made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms X to notify her of Mr Y’s deteriorating health and his subsequent death. There is no fault in the care home then notifying the second recorded contact.
It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman