Summary: I will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a residential care provider when a resident became unwell during very hot weather conditions. This is because there is nothing that further investigation could add to the Care Provider’s previous investigation and response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs C, complains on behalf or her mother, Mrs U, that the Care Provider:
• Did not care for Mrs U properly while she was in its residential care home for respite care;
• Allowed her to become overheated and dehydrated;
• Did not provide air conditioning for her;
• Sent her to hospital rather than home when she became ill;
• Falsified records regarding administering her medication; and
• Has refused to provide copies of care and medical records to Mrs C, although she has Power of Attorney for her mother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the Care Provider and by Mrs C. I have also sent Mrs C a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs U went into a residential home run by the Care Provider for a brief period of respite care. The weather was unusually hot, and Mrs U became overheated and unwell. She was taken to hospital. No serious health concerns were found, and Mrs U was returned to the care home.
6. Mrs U again became unwell, and was again taken to hospital suffering from heat exhaustion and dehydration.
7. Mrs C has complained to the Care Provider on behalf of Mrs U.
8. She said that the home failed to care properly for Mrs U, and allowed her to become overheated and dehydrated. It did not provide air conditioning, and sent her to hospital rather than notifying Mrs C who would rather have taken her home.
9. Mrs C also raised the same points in a request for a safeguarding investigation.
10. Mrs C received a response by the Care Provider and a safeguarding investigation report. The Care Provider said that it would have been neglectful to send Mrs U home when she became ill and needed hospital treatment. Both responses also provide details of the measures that the home took to try to cool Mrs U, including the purchase of an air cooling unit. Unfortunately the air cooling unit needed ice to function properly, which the home did not have. The outcome of the safeguarding investigation was inconclusive: it found that the home did try to cool Mrs U but was not able to do so. However, it said that Mrs U was also unwell with an infection causing a high temperature, so it was unable to say conclusively that the overheating was caused by the home’s ineffective action.
11. Mrs C did not accept that conclusion, and the safeguarding outcome was left as inconclusive, pending interrogation of the medical records.
12. Mrs C was told that the medical records show that medication including antibiotics was administered by the home. She alleges they have been falsified, and has asked to be provided with them. The Care Provider has refused stating that being next of kin and holding Power of Attorney does not giver her authority to see Mrs U’s records.
13. Mrs C has now complained to the LGSCO, but we will not investigate the complaint. This is for several linked reasons.
14. We cannot add anything to the core investigation into the actions of the Care Provider on the day that Mrs U went into hospital. It has looked at what happened in detail, and while I appreciate that Mrs C does not agree with the outcome, we could not find more evidence or change the outcome.
15. Additionally the outcomes provided are appropriate. The Care Provider reimbursed the fees in recognition that Mrs U’s stay was not the pleasant experience anticipated. It has also undertaken to put air conditioning in place throughout the home by summer 2021, so that the problems will not be repeated.
16. The Care Provider has not given Mrs C the records that she requested, stating that Mrs C does not have authority to request them. Although Mrs C says she has Power of Attorney, this would only be valid for use if Mrs U lacks capacity to make decisions for herself. Mrs C says this is the case, but if the Care Provider continues to dispute Mrs C’s right to see Mrs U’s medical and care records, this is something that should be raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is the body set up to consider such complaints.
17. Finally, Mrs C complains that Mrs U has suffered long term medical damage caused by the dehydration. This is a new issue that has not been considered by the Care Provider and we are therefore unable to consider it within this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation could not add anything further to the Care Providers previous response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman