Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Care Provider’s medical protocols. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Care Provider refused to carry out a doctor’s amended seizure protocol for his son, Mr Y.
2. Mr X would like the Care Provider to follow the advice given and readmit Mr Y to the weekly sessions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s son, Mr Y, has medical needs and attends a weekly session run by the Care Provider.
8. Mr Y’s doctor amended his seizure protocol which the Care Provider refused to administer due to the medication involved. It said it would consider it if it came from a specialist rather than Mr Y’s GP.
9. Mr X withdrew Mr Y from the sessions, but when he wanted to attend again his space had been allocated to someone else.
10. The Care Provider explained to Mr X that it must act in accordance with the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) regulations and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines. It said the staff do not feel comfortable administering emergency rescue medication prior to an emergency.
11. In response to our enquiries the Care Provider explained the relationship with Mr X is now untenable so it would be unable to offer Mr Y his place back.
12. The Care Provider considered the information from Mr Y’s doctor and from Mr X. It applied the relevant law and policy and gave reasons why it could not agree the new protocol. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to warrant an investigation.
13. Even if we found fault we could not insist the Care Provider accept Mr Y again, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman