University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

3. Mrs F complains about the care and treatment the Trust gave to Mrs C between 17 June and 15 July 2022.

4. Mrs F complains about the standard of nursing care saying the Trust did not give Mrs C good hydration and nutrition, Mrs C was not being mobilised and she was left to toilet in her bed without being changed for long periods of time. Mrs F also complains that a Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS) form was completed without speaking to the family.

5. Mrs F adds that when Mrs C’s condition changed, it was not investigated properly and assumptions were made about her deterioration.

6. Mrs F also complains that Mrs C’s prescription of Risperidone (an antipsychotic drug) was not reviewed and the side effects of the medication were not considered as a possible cause of her condition and deterioration. Mrs F also complains that the Trust gave Mrs C Risperidone in the morning instead of the evening.

7. Mrs F also complains about the way her complaint was handled. She says the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) advised she could not make a complaint until Mrs C had been discharged and that the Trust has not fully addressed her complaint or accepted its failures in care and the impact this had on Mrs C or the family.

8. Mrs F feels Mrs C’s deterioration was caused and made worse by the lack of nursing care, which led to her death. She says this has had a devastating impact on Mrs C’s children and grandchildren, who could not communicate with Mrs C for several weeks before her death.

9. Mrs F would like financial compensation.

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is unreasonable in the circumstances.

13. Our understanding is that Mrs F could make a claim of clinical negligence, as she has concerns that the standard of care and treatment given to Mrs C led to her death. We have discussed this with Mrs F 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 in to.

14. After our discussion, Mrs F confirmed she is going to explore legal action. For this reason and given the outcomes Mrs F is looking for, it would not be appropriate for us to consider the complaint further at this time.

15. If we did look at the complaint, we could be denying Mrs F and her family a more significant and appropriate outcome. We have also considered that the family may wish to explore this option while they are within the time limits for making such claims. For medical negligence claims, this is three years from the event.

16. We recognise that making a complaint and a possible claim of medical negligence can be emotionally challenging. It is important to note that making a claim would involve having a dedicated solicitor/legal professional who has an interest in winning the case. This may mean that Mrs F and her family feel more supported through this route, rather than through our process, which is impartial.

17. It is not our role to provide legal advice, so we have given Mrs F information about independent and impartial organisations who may be able to give her legal advice. These include:

• AvMA (action against medical accidents) - a charity for patient safety and justice • Advocate - a charity which finds free legal help from barristers • The Law Society - the independent professional body for solicitors, they have a ‘find a solicitor’ function to find the nearest legal adviser who can help with a legal issue • The Citizen’s Advice Bureau – for advice about getting free or affordable legal advice.

18. If Mrs F takes legal action but not all the outcomes she wants could be achieved by a court, she can return to us, but we will only be able to consider any outcomes that could not be achieved by a court (like service improvements or decisions on complaint handling).

19. If Mrs F wishes to return to us she should bear in mind our time limit and come back to us as soon as she reasonably can. The law says complaints should be brought to us within one year of becoming aware of the reason to complain, unless we consider it was not reasonable to.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mrs F’s complaint about the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (the Trust). We are sorry to hear how Mrs F, her family, and her late mother, Mrs C, were affected by the concerns she has raised. It is clear they have had a difficult and distressing time and understandably, Mrs F wants to put things right.

2. After considering the information provided by Mrs F, we think it is reasonable for her to explore taking legal action. We will explain the reasons for our decision in this statement. Complaints give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mrs F for sharing her experience with us.