Mr B complained about the care and treatment provided by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board to his late mother. Mr B was concerned that the Health Board had failed to acknowledge shortcomings that could improve a patient’s quality of care.
The Ombudsman decided that the Health Board’s complaint response was reasonable, and provided detailed explanations for thecare provided. The Health Board had also provided explanations for the decisions made in the treatment of Mr B’s mother. Mr B challenged the Health Board’s complaint response and was offered the opportunity to submit further information for consideration. The Health Board responded to the additional information to say it had nothing further to add. The Ombudsman considered Mr B’s additional submission. She decided that the Health Board had not addressed his concerns surrounding treatment of pleural effusion and why the Health Board considered that treatment to be appropriate. The Ombudsman decided to settled the complaint without an investigation.
The Ombudsman sought and gained the Health Board’s agreement to, within 1 month, reconsider Mr B’s outstanding concerns and provide a written response.