Summary: Mrs C says the care provider contracted by the Council did not administer her mother’s medication properly. There is no fault in how the care provider administered Mrs C’s mother’s medication.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complained the care provider contracted by the Council did not administer her mother’s medication properly. Mrs C says the care provider diluted her mother’s memory medication in liquid when it should not have done and gave her aspirin on an empty stomach. Mrs C says that had an impact on her mother’s symptoms.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mrs C disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• considered Mrs C’s comments on my original draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. At the time of the events complained of Mrs C’s mother was living in a care home arranged by the Council. Mrs C’s mother received care from nursing staff in the care home. The care provider’s nursing staff were responsible for administering Mrs C’s mother’s medication. Mrs C says the nursing staff did not administer that medication properly.

Analysis

6. The first point Mrs C makes is the care provider diluted her mother’s memory medication when it should not have done. Mrs C says her mother deteriorated during that period. Mrs C is referring here to medication which dissolves on the tongue. Mrs C says because the medication dissolves on the tongue there was no reason for the home to give the medication to her mother in liquid. Having considered the documentary evidence I recognise the medication was provided in orodispersible form, which means it should be dissolved on the tongue. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the home began providing that medicine with water due Mrs C’s mother spitting out medication. I understand Mrs C’s concern about that given the instructions on the medicine packet. However, I am satisfied when Mrs C raised concerns the care provider contacted the GP for advice. The GP said the home could provide the medication in a small amount of water. Given that advice I cannot criticise the care provider for providing the medication to Mrs C’s mother with liquid.
7. In reaching that view I am aware Mrs C says the care provider used much more than 5-10ml of water when providing her mother with the memory medication. Mrs C says the care provider regularly used around 200/250ml. The care provider disputes that and says the medication was only provided in a small amount of liquid. Having considered the medicine records provided by the care provider I can find no reference to the specific amount of liquid used when providing medication. In those circumstances I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the care provider used more than 5ml of water before the GP gave advice.
8. Mrs C says the care provider gave her mother aspirin on an empty stomach which aggravated her acid reflux. As I understand it, the difficulty here is Mrs C’s mother did not usually get out of bed until late morning and therefore did not have breakfast. As the aspirin is administered first thing in the morning this meant Mrs C’s mother received the aspirin on an empty stomach. Again, the documentary records do not contain any instruction about how the care provider should administer aspirin. I recognise though the packaging for aspirin makes clear it should be taken with or after food. Again, I am satisfied when Mrs C raised this as an issue the care provider contacted Mrs C’s GP. The advice given at that point was that as it was important to provide aspirin to prevent Mrs C’s mother having a stroke it should still be given even if it was on an empty stomach. As the care provider acted in accordance with the advice from the GP I have no grounds to criticise it. I have seen nothing in the documentary evidence to suggest the care provider received any instruction about providing aspirin after breakfast until July 2018.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman