The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries into his late mother’s care. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a thorough adult safeguarding enquiry after he raised concerns about the administration of medication and staff conduct at the nursing home (the Home) where his mother, Mrs Y lived. He also said the Council failed to share the report detailing the outcome of its safeguarding enquiry with him and its communication with him was poor. He said the Council’s actions had caused frustration and distress.
Mr X wants an apology from the Council. He also wants the Council to take action against the Home around its morphine administration.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Care quality Commission (CQC) as he had concerns about the care provided by the Home. He said the staff were not compassionate and the Home was not respecting Mrs Y’s wishes not to take medication, specifically morphine. He said he was concerned the Home had not followed correct procedures as Mrs Y had died, shortly after the Home gave her morphine.
The CQC passed the referral to the Council. The Council completed an unannounced visit to the Home. It asked the Home to investigate the concerns raised in relation to Mrs Y’s care and administration of medication. The Council took a copy of Mrs X’s Medical Administration Records (MAR); and a record of the Homes contact with Mrs Y’s GP and relatives. The Council also sought further information with Mrs Y’s GP.
The Home completed its internal investigation in July 2021 and provided a copy to the Council. It said Mrs Y had capacity to make decisions about her medication. It said it had administered morphine twice with Mrs Y’s consent. It identified there had been a breakdown in the relationship between some staff and Mr X. It made recommendations about how to best support communication with families in the future. The Council decided no further action was necessary.
Mr X asked the Council for a copy of its safeguarding report. The Council refused. It offered to meet with Mr X to discuss its safeguarding investigation. Mr X chose not to meet with the Council. He remained unhappy with how the Council had dealt with the safeguarding enquiry and complained to the Ombudsman.
We will not investigate this complaint further as there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council completed its safeguarding enquiries. It considered all relevant information and sought further information from Mrs Y’s GP.
Mr X should complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he is unhappy about the Council’s decision not to share its safeguarding report with him. That is because the ICO is best placed to deal with complaints about access to information.
Mr X is also unhappy the Council’s communication with him was poor. Although that had caused him frustration, any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman