Summary: Mrs X complained about the Care Provider placing restrictions on visiting her mother at the end of her life, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Care Provider placing restrictions on visiting her mother (Mrs Y) at the end of her life, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She says it disproportionately restricted visiting times in Mrs Y’s private room to half an hour. This led to Mrs Y missing out on her right to have her family by her side at the end of her life and caused significant upset to the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the care provider followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid-19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a care provider’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mrs X provided when she complained to us.
6. I considered the relevant guidance, ‘Clinical guide for supporting compassionate visiting arrangements for those receiving care at the end of life’ (11 May 2020, NHS England).
7. I considered Mrs X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Y, was living in a care home when the Covid-19 pandemic began. Care homes introduced bans on visits to residents to manage the risk of infection. NHS England issued guidance in May 2020 relating to visiting arrangements for residents at the end of their life. This said “Whilst care homes should limit unnecessary visits, when somebody is dying, it is important that their loved ones are able to visit”.
9. The Care Provider decided it would allow one family member to visit when a resident was at the end of their life, socially distanced and wearing appropriate personal protective equipment for a maximum of 15 minutes and only one such visit would be allowed. It says “The time chosen was reflecting government advice that cross-infection risks increased if any interaction lasted longer than 15 minutes”. Mrs Y was judged to be at the end of her life in May 2020, and the Care Provider contacted her family. Mrs X and her brother visited over four days, with the Care Provider allowing them to visit for varying periods, generally longer than 15 minutes. On the day Mrs Y died, they had each visited for 30 minutes.
10. The Care Provider’s decision to limit visit timings was not inconsistent with the guidance as Mrs X says. It allowed Mrs Y’s family to visit, albeit not for as long as they would have liked. The guidance says for visits to people without Covid-19, the main risk to be considered is to the other people in the setting. The Care Provider reflected this in its response to Mrs X’s complaint, explaining it acknowledged the difficulties the measures would present for families and it understood the decision could feel insensitive, but its overriding duty was to protect the health and wellbeing of the other residents and staff.
11. We cannot question whether a care provider’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Care Provider has explained its reasons clearly and I am satisfied, from the complaints correspondence Mrs X provided, it considered its decision thoroughly. There is no evidence we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions. It was entitled to come to the decision it did.
12. Mrs X’s complaint included that there was inconsistency in the visit lengths allowed by care staff over the four days. The Care Provider did not act strictly in line with its policy during this period. I do not propose that we investigate based on this alone, as this fluctuation in visit lengths benefitted Mrs X and her brother by enabling longer visits than they otherwise would have been allowed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman