Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Ms B. This is because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complained about care provided to her late sister-in-law Ms B. Mrs C says Ms B had dementia and was admitted to hospital with severe dehydration and was found to have had a stroke. Ms B died five days after being admitted to hospital. Mrs C says the family devastated by the loss of Ms B and wants the Care Provider to implement better record keeping of food and fluid intake. Mrs C says she has requested documentation about Ms B’s care but has only received half of what she wants despite chasing it up several times.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider responded to Mrs C’s concerns. It said Ms B had a little appetite and although she lacked capacity in some areas due to her dementia, she was able to accept or reject food and fluids. Records show she was offered both. It said initially Ms B did not need a food and fluid chart, but this was put in place and records showed she was offered fluids every hour. The Care Provider said Ms B’s weight remained stable for the six months prior to her passing away. Ms B was seen by her GP, and although there was no evidence of infection, she was prescribed a muscle relaxant. The Care Provider explained there was an initial safeguarding concern raised about Ms B being dehydrated, however, it was closed down to the safeguarding team.
6. Mrs C remains unhappy with the Care Provider’s responses but further investigation by us could not add to them. We could not now provide Ms B with a remedy for any injustice caused by fault which might be uncovered during an investigation. The coroner could have requested an investigation into Ms B’s death if they were concerned about the cause.
7. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the regulator of care providers. If Mrs C is concerned about the record keeping in the home she can ask the CQC to consider her concerns.
8. Mrs C is concerned she has not received all the information she has requested about Ms B’s care. Mrs C can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether she should have the information she wants.

deceased person  | Search | Information Commissioner's Office (ico.org.uk)

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Care Provider’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Mrs C wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman