Summary: We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint about the standard of her late mother’s, Mrs E’s, end-of-life care. This is because we could not provide Mrs E with a remedy even if we uncovered evidence of fault because she is deceased. Further investigation is not warranted by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained about the poor care, communication, and end-of-life palliative care her mother, Mrs E, received from her care provider. Ms D says:

• she was not involved in decision making regarding Mrs E’s end of life plan and did not agree to withholding food and drink.
• She is concerned Mrs E did not have an end-of-life plan.
• Carers shouted at her for giving Mrs E fluids and food when a paramedic assessed her as being dehydrated.
• Mrs E’s room was dirty, there had been no deep clean, despite the Care Provider’s assertion it had been cleaned, curtains were falling off the rail, clothes and jewellery went missing.
• Mrs E was dirty, not washed and dressed in other people’s clothes.

2. Ms D wants a full investigation into what happened, and all point she raised answered.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Care Provider acknowledged there was a lack of communication and explanation around Mrs E’s wishes and end-of-life care and apologised Ms D was not involved in the care planning process. It explained Mrs E’s GP advised on the plan and what anticipatory medication she had been prescribed. It confirmed a carer could not make this decision. It said staff would have offered fluids and mouth care and Mrs E’s nutritional intake was recorded in daily notes rather than on a separate fluid chart.
7. Although Ms D is unhappy with the Care Provider’s response and wants us to investigate further it is not our role to provide her with answers she has not had received from the Care Provider during its investigation. Our role is to provide a remedy for any injustice caused by administrative fault. We cannot now provide a remedy to Mrs E for any fault which might be uncovered during an investigation and whilst we acknowledge the upset and distress caused to Ms D, it is not significant enough to warrant an ombudsman investigation.
8. Ms D has complained to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The CQC is the regulator of Care Providers and can monitor the home against its fundamental care standards during routine inspections.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because we could not provide a remedy to Mrs E for any fault which might be uncovered during an investigation. There is no significant injustice to Ms D warranting an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman