The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Care Provider’s failure to properly record Mr B’s next of kin. This is because the Care Provider has updated its policies and procedures to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence happening again and we could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.
The complaint
Mrs C complained Mr B’s Care Provider failed to record his next of kin contact details. Consequently, Mr B’s family were unaware he had been admitted to hospital until the hospital contacted them. Fortunately, they were able to spend a couple of days with him before he passed away but are concerned they were not notified sooner by his Care Provider. Mrs C says is concerned the Care Provider’s response is contradictory and feels let down by the Care Provider.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Care Provider explained at the time of Mr B’s admission to hospital it could not locate his next of kin details and they were not in the correct place, although they were available within the home in a paper updates file. The Care Provider says lessons have been learned and recommendations for improvement made as a result of Mrs C’s complaint. It explained its policy and procedures and admissions process have all been updated which should minimise the risk of a similar occurrence.
The Care Provider apologised for the delay in contacting Mr B’s family and explained this decision was made with the best of intentions to allow the family to process the news.
Whilst it is understandable Mrs C would have been upset at learning her brother had been admitted to hospital two days previously, the Care Provider has apologised for the delay in making contact and explained it has updated its admissions procedures to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. We could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not provide a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman