The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in adult social care. The Care Provider has accepted its error, apologised, and learned lessons. It is unlikely we would add anything further.
The complaint
Ms B says the Care Provider coerced her relative, Mr C, into giving consent for a vaccine, despite knowing he has an allergy. Ms B says this has caused a more rapid decline in Mr C’s health and caused worry to the family. Ms B wants the Care Provider to put better procedures in place to prevent recurrence.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by someone we consider to be suitable. We have accepted Ms B as a suitable representative for Mr C.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended) We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe: the action has not caused significant enough injustice to justify our involvement; or it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr C lived at a care run by the Care Provider. Mr C received a vaccine despite being allergic. The Care Provider has accepted fault, apologised, and learned lessons from the error. The Care Provider took the correct action to tell the family, the local safeguarding authority, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of its error. The Care Provider also got a nurse to check Mr C who was satisfied with his appearance and clinical observations.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we could not decide the Care Provider’s actions caused or contributed to a decline in Mr C’s health. So, we cannot say there is a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. It is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The safeguarding authority and the CQC can put in action plans to improve future service. So, it is not appropriate to use our resource in the wider public interest in this case as it is unlikely we would add anything further.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman