A practice in the West Midlands area

3. Ms O complains the Practice did not treat her mother, Ms I, properly. Ms O says the Practice should have referred Ms I to specialist professionals to help with her nutrition, alcohol intake and mental illnesses. Ms O says Ms I should have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 for her own well-being.

4. Ms O says that, because she did not receive the care she needed, Ms I was hospitalised and later died from severe malnutrition.

5. Ms O wants a full explanation from the Practice about why it did not act on Ms I’s condition. Ms O would also like an apology and service improvements to ensure no other family goes through the same experience. Ms O says she would also like financial compensation to show that the Practice accepts the failings.

6. In June 2020, the Practice met with Ms I to discuss her welfare. At this meeting, it was suggested she may be clinically depressed. Ms I disagreed with the diagnosis and asked not to be treated by that doctor in the future.

7. In September 2021, Ms I was admitted to hospital and treated for low potassium. After Ms I was discharged, the Practice telephoned her for a follow-up consultation. Ms O also contacted the Practice to make it aware Ms I had not been eating properly since returning home. Ms O also raised concerns that Ms I was consuming increasing amounts of alcohol.

8. Ms O continued to contact the Practice between September and December 2021 to discuss her concerns about Ms I’s welfare. During that period, the Practice telephoned Ms I and met with her at her home.

9. In October 2021, a multidisciplinary team meeting (a meeting made up of professionals from different health specialists) discussed Ms I. The Practice said Ms I had capacity and could make her own judgements on eating and consuming alcohol.

10. In November 2021, the Practice visited Ms I and encouraged her to talk about her diet. The Practice accepted in its reply to Ms O it could have referred Ms I to a dietician at this point. The Practice said this ‘could have improved the care they offered’, but ‘this may not have improved the prognosis or changed the outcome’.

11. In December 2021, Ms O complained to the Practice about the care and treatment it had provided since she became aware of Ms I’s deteriorating condition.

12. In January 2022, Ms O told the Practice Ms I was being treated in hospital for severe malnutrition. Sadly, Ms I died a short time after being admitted.

15. The HSCA says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms O to understand her circumstances and the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.

16. Ms O says the Practice did not act on a potential diagnosis of depression. She believes her mother’s death was a result of a lack of care and treatment from the Practice. As such, Ms O may be able to take legal action on this part of her complaint. We have therefore considered whether it would be reasonable for Ms O to pursue this.

17. Ms O is also unhappy with the Practice’s response to the complaint. She says the response has errors in it and is not accurate. Ms O appears to be complaining about the complaint response here, and we accept there is no route available for taking legal action over concerns about complaint handling.

18. We have gone on to consider the outcomes Ms O seeks. Ms O says she wants an apology from the Practice, service improvements and financial compensation. Ms O says she wants compensation from the Practice, as in her view it did not act on her contact with it. She does not have an amount of compensation in mind.

19. We accept legal action would be unlikely to result in a direct recommendation of service improvements, but we do think these would happen if legal action were successful. We think both our service and legal action could achieve the outcomes Mrs O wants.

20. We asked Ms O whether there would be any barriers to prevent her from pursuing legal action. Ms O did not identify any barriers and she was open to researching this further. Ms O said this was an option she would explore after we have taken a decision on the complaint. We explained to Ms O she must explore legal action first.

21. It therefore appears a legal action route may exist for the clinical issues Ms O raises. Ms O wants a range of outcomes that both we and legal action may be able to achieve. We have seen nothing to suggest Ms O’s circumstances would mean she could not pursue legal action. It therefore seems reasonable for Ms O to do this.

22. We accept this leaves part of the complaint, about the Practice’s handling of it, which has not been considered. We do not consider it proportionate to consider the complaint about complaint handling at this stage. If Ms O is unable to pursue legal action, we can consider all parts of the complaint together.

23. We have explained to Ms O she can come back to us if she is not able to pursue legal action for any reason and we would reassess her circumstances at that point. We have also advised her this would need to be done in line with our time-limit rules.

1. We have carefully considered Ms O’s complaint about a practice in the West Midlands area (the Practice). We are sorry to learn of the death of Ms O’s mother, Ms I. It is clear to us from speaking with Ms O that the months before her mother’s death were very distressing.

2. We consider Ms O could take legal action in relation to most of the matters she has brought to us. We have therefore decided not to take further action on her complaint.