Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment carried out with her father shortly before he died. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council carried out a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment with her father shortly after a clinician said he was end of life.

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 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained after the Council-appointed doctor tried to carry out a DoLS assessment the day after a clinician said he was end of life.
6. The DoLS provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no less restrictive alternative. The legislation sets out the procedure to follow to obtain authorisation to deprive an individual of their liberty. Without authorisation, the deprivation of liberty is unlawful. It is the responsibility of the care home or hospital to apply for authorisation.
7. Mrs X said clinicians declared her father, Mr Y, as end of life and his health had worsened significantly. He was unresponsive and non-verbal.
8. The Council said the Care Home correctly applied for the DoLS. It said the doctor rang the Care Home the day before he visited to do the assessment, but it did not tell him about Mr Y’s prognosis. It said if it had known, it would have done things differently.
9. Mrs X complained about how the doctor carried out the assessment. The Council said the doctor asked four questions and observed Mr Y before ending the assessment.
10. Mrs X said she told the doctor her father was end of life. The Council said a person can be end of life for many months and may still be able to respond.The doctor said in the future he would tell relatives they can ask for the assessment to stop if they are uncomfortable.
11. The Council apologised to Mrs X. It acknowledged it would have acted differently if it had known Mr Y’s prognosis. It said it had reminded the Care Home of the importance of updating the Council about changes in residents’ health.
12. While I recognise the distress Mrs X suffered, I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has apologised and taken learning from the complaint and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman