Summary: Ms X complains about the way City of Wolverhampton Council and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust handled her inpatient physiotherapy, discharge from hospital and subsequent care. We found fault with the Trust’s handling of Ms X’s discharge. We also found fault with the Council’s record keeping. As a result, Ms X has experienced frustration. The Trust has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a financial remedy. The Trust and the Council have also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way she was discharged from hospital by City of Wolverhampton Council (the Council) and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (the Trust). Ms X says she was discharged to a care home against her wishes and given no choice in the matter. Ms X also complains she was charged for this care.
2. Ms X says there were delays to her physiotherapy and this has not been provided in line with her care plan. Ms X is unhappy that her physiotherapy was stopped. She says there has been a failure to promote her independence, for example, not allowing her to wash herself. Ms X also complains about delays to providing equipment, which she says left her bed bound.
3. Ms X says the situation has impacted on her dignity, mental wellbeing and quality of life.
4. Ms X would like continued physiotherapy to help regain her independence. She would also like an apology and service improvements. Ms X is also seeking financial redress, including reimbursement for her care fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
6. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A (1), as amended).
7. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused. We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
8. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the organisations that are the subject of the complaint, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X, the Council and the Trust as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I have carefully considered all the written and oral evidence submitted, even if it is not all mentioned within this decision statement.
10. Ms X, the Council and the Trust had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key legislation and guidance

Hospital Discharge (post April 2022)

11. Department of Health and Social Care issued statutory guidance: Hospital discharge and community support guidance (the National Discharge Guidance) in April 2022 (updated January 2024). This provides guidance to NHS bodies and local authorities on discharging adults from hospital. It said local areas should adopt discharge processes that best meet the needs of the local population. This could include the ‘discharge to assess, home first’ approach.
12. Section 4 of this Guidance says ‘health and care professionals who are facilitating discharges should work together with individuals…to discharge people to the setting that best meets their needs…This process should be person-centred, strengths-based and driven by choice, dignity and respect.
13. Section 12 say ‘people should be supported to participate actively in making informed choices about their care...These conversations should begin early as part of discharge planning and not wait until the person is ready to be discharged.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations)

14. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance (the Guidance) on how to meet the fundamental standards.
15. Regulation 17 of the Regulations refers to good governance. The Guidance says ‘17(2)(c) Records relating to the care and treatment of each person using the service must be kept and fit for purpose. Fit for purpose means they must be complete, legible, indelible, accurate and up to date…’

What happened

16. Ms X has a long-standing diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis (MS).
17. In November 2023, Ms X collapsed and fractured both of her ankles. She was admitted to hospital, where one ankle fracture was identified.
18. Shortly after, Ms X transferred to a rehabilitation hospital. She stayed on the neurological rehabilitation unit for a period of intensive physiotherapy.
19. In late November 2023, Ms X transferred to a short-term placement in a care home (the Care Home). Ms X’s care was funded under the Discharge to Assess process to assess her needs outside of a hospital environment.
20. Ms X was to receive ongoing physiotherapy while she was in the Care Home. However, shortly after her arrival, the fracture in her other ankle was discovered. Ms X is not complaining about this. The therapy team paused Ms X’s therapy while her second ankle healed.
21. Typically Discharge to Assess placements are funded for a maximum of six weeks. Ms X’s funding was extended to 24 January 2024, due to the extra recovery time needed for her second fracture.
22. When funding ended, Ms X was given the option to return home or to extend her stay at the Care Home. Ms X decided to remain at the Care Home for a short time. She paid her care costs for this period.
23. In late Feb 2024, Ms X returned to hospital with an infection. She soon transferred back to the rehabilitation hospital for further physiotherapy. She remained there for over two months.
24. In late May 2024, Ms X was discharged home with a Discharge to Assess funded reablement care package. Reablement care provides short term support to help people live independently. This care is usually provided in the person’s own home by a team of care professionals. Ms X also continued to receive support from physiotherapists and an Occupational Therapist (OT) at home.
25. Ms X’s reablement care funding was due to end on 18 June. However, her reablement care was extended twice, along with care calls being increased to accommodate time to hoist Ms X from her bed to a chair.
26. On 30 July 2024, Ms X’s reablement care ended. Ms X chose to arrange care with her previous care agency as she wanted greater continuity of carers.
27. In September 2024, the physiotherapy team stopped further standing attempts and decided to focus on Ms X’s mobility via a wheelchair. Ms X was very unhappy about this decision.
28. In March 2025, Ms X told the OT she had continued therapy with a private gym for several months and had made good progress with standing. The OT and physiotherapists agreed to review her.
29. In April 2025, Ms X’s physiotherapy restarted. She continues to receive therapy sessions.

Analysis

Therapy on the rehabilitation ward

30. Ms X stayed on the neurological rehabilitation ward at the rehabilitation hospital twice. Ms X disputes that she had extensive rehabilitation in hospital. She says she was often left to sit about or just put on an exercise bike.
31. The Trust told us that Ms X received a significant amount of inpatient therapy, by physiotherapists and OTs, both on the ward and the onsite gym. The Trust said Ms X also continued to receive therapy once she returned home.
32. I have reviewed Ms X’s therapy input. During her time on the ward in November 2023, her therapy was limited because she was instructed to be non-weight bearing while her fractured ankle was healing. The therapy team could not attempt standing therapy until the orthopaedic department approved it. In the meantime, Ms X’s therapy worked on her sitting balance. Ms X then moved to the Care Home.
33. In late February 2024, Ms X returned to hospital and moved to the rehabilitation ward. Ms X stayed on the ward for almost twelve weeks, until her discharge home in May 2024. The records show therapists visited Ms X most days and she received a range of therapy including standing practice with various aids, exercises, sitting work and using gym equipment such as an exercise bike. Unfortunately, despite her best efforts, Ms X did not progress. This was undoubtedly disappointing for her.
34. While the therapy Ms X received in hospital did not meet her expectations, the evidence shows she received regular physiotherapy input over a prolonged period. I have not found fault on this point.

Discharge to Care Home

35. Ms X says she was forced to go to a Care Home, against her wishes. Ms X says this move was not discussed with her, she was not given any other options and a care home was an inappropriate choice for someone her age. Ms X says she did not receive meaningful rehabilitation therapy while she was there, which was further delayed by lack of equipment.
36. Ms X complains she was charged £3,448 for her care home fees between 25 January and 29 February 2024. She says these charges were not clearly communicated to her and it was not her fault she needed to stay in the Care Home longer. Ms X says she felt harassed into signing the contact and care staff regularly asked her about payment. She would like this money refunded.
37. The Trust was responsible for arranging Ms X’s discharge to the Care Home. The Trust told me an OT spoke with Ms X on 22 November 2023 to discuss her discharge options. The OT was concerned Ms X may deteriorate further if she returned home to remain in bed. The records say Ms X wished to stay on the ward to continue therapy, however she could not progress her mobility at that time as she was non weight bearing.
38. There is nothing in the Trust’s notes about the move to a care home being discussed with Ms X, her views on it and whether she was told which care home she would be going to. It is not clear whether this is poor communication or poor record keeping. However, I cannot be satisfied that Ms X was properly consulted about this decision. This is fault and has caused Ms X frustration.
39. Ms X complains she did not receive therapy during her stay in the Care Home. Shortly after Ms X moved to the Care Home, a previously undiagnosed second fracture from her fall was found. This meant Ms X’s ankle was put into a cast and she needed to be non-weight bearing for an additional six weeks, while the fracture healed. This limited what therapy could be completed during this time. I acknowledge this was frustrating for Ms X. However, this was a result of clinical factors beyond of the therapists’ control.
40. In late December 2023, the orthopaedic department advised the therapy team that Ms X could start progressing towards being weight bearing. The physiotherapist and the OT promptly assessed Ms X in early January 2024 and noted that she would benefit from specialist walking boots to support her ankles. These were ordered promptly and collected two weeks later, as soon as they were available. Further therapy visits were made, although these were impacted by other factors, such as Ms X experiencing pain from a urinary tract infection (UTI).
41. Ms X’s placement in the Care Home was a short-term funded bed for reablement. The funding was extended to take account for the therapy delays caused by the discovery of a second fracture. The physiotherapy team felt Ms X was unlikely to be able to progress to walking at that time and therefore the reablement bed was not appropriate to meet her long-term therapy goals. As such, the short-term funding ended. The hospital social worker gave Ms X two discharge options – to return home with community therapy or to pay to stay in the Care Home a further four weeks.
42. The Council records say Ms X did not want to return home as she would need two carers and a hoist. She wanted to be walking before she went home. Ms X was given time to think about it and discuss it with a friend. The records say Ms X later decided on a short stay at the Care Home as it would work out cheaper because it included her meals and offered overnight care which she would not have at home.
43. Ms X later raised doubts about her decision and said she was not sure what to do. Several further conversations took place and Ms X was given more time to think about it. She was also offered an advocate. The records show the social worker discussed the financial assessment and charges with Ms X more than once. Two weeks after the initial discussion, Ms X signed the contract.
44. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied the Council gave Ms X two discharge options to decide between, along with explaining the financial implications of extending her stay in the Care Home. I have not seen any evidence of the Council pressuring Ms X into signing the contact. She was given time to consider the options, seek support and external opinions. As Ms X made the decision to extend her stay in the Care Home, we would not recommend that her care fees be reimbursed.

Ongoing therapy in the community

45. Ms X complains that her therapy was delayed when she returned home in late May 2024.
46. I have reviewed the information provided by the Trust. The Trust’s specialist Community Neurological Rehabilitation Team continued to be involved in Ms X’s care, once she returned home. The Council’s OT also regularly visited Ms X to provide support with equipment and manual handing.
47. The records show a physiotherapist completed several visits through June 2024, including some joint visits with the OT, to work on Ms X’s standing practice and bathroom access. In July 2024, the therapy team paused Ms X’s standing practice as she was not progressing and at times experiencing catheter pain. The physiotherapist then focused on Ms X’s core strength and sitting balance. In September 2024, the physiotherapist trialled standing equipment with Ms X again. However, this was unsuccessful. The therapy team stopped further attempts to stand. The Trust acknowledged Ms X was trying very hard, however she was not progressing and there were concerns about Ms X and the therapists’ safety.
48. The visiting professionals tried a range of methods to help Ms X stand, including a standing hoist and different types of standing frames and equipment. The OT made several visits to test out different hoists with Ms X to find a suitable set up. The OT had to pause hoisting at times, due to Ms X’s catheter pain. While it took the OT some time and several attempts to find a suitable hoist set up, she was actively working on resolving the issue.
49. I have not seen any evidence of therapy delays by the Trust and the Council. While the frequency of visits was not what Ms X was hoping for, she did receive regular therapy input at home.
50. Ms X complains that therapy was not in line with her care plan. For example, Ms X says the therapists and care agency failed to promote her independence as she was not allowed her to wash herself. Ms X was initially all care in bed while the OT resolved issues with the hoist. However, her care plan said Ms X was to be encouraged to wash her top half, brush her hair and clean her teeth, and to progress towards washing her lower half with support. Ms X could complete this part of her care while she was in bed. The physiotherapist and OT also trialled a shower chair to help Ms X access her bathroom and wash herself. The OT extended Ms X’s funded reablement care and increased the morning call time more than once. This was to allow extra time for Ms X to be hoisted and engage in her own care. This demonstrates that the therapists’ aim was to improve Ms X’s mobility and independence.
51. I will return to the point later. However, the records suggest the physiotherapist and the OT believed Ms X was engaging in her own care and sought to promote this. I have not found fault by the therapists on this point.
52. Ms X feels the therapy focused too much on her MS, rather than her fractured ankles. From what I have seen, the therapists made decisions based on Ms X’s level of function rather than the underlying reasons for this. The therapists’ decisions appear to have taken all factors into account, including Ms X’s fractured ankles and MS. The overall focus was to improve Ms X’s mobility. I have not seen any evidence that therapists gave more weight to one factor at the expense of another.
53. Ms X says she could do more than she was allowed to do, and she did not feel listened to. The therapists must consider risk and safety when conducting therapy sessions. This includes not only Ms X’s safety, but that of the therapists and the carers. There was also a difference of views between Ms X and the therapists about the progression of her MS and the impact of this on her mobility. However, the type of therapy offered was the therapists’ professional judgment, which they are entitled to make as part of their job. I have not seen anything to suggest there was fault in the way these decisions were made.

Decision to stop physiotherapy

54. Ms X is unhappy with the Trust’s decision to stop physiotherapy sessions. Ms X says she had to pay for private gym sessions to continue her therapy. She would like to be reimbursed for these costs.
55. The Trust says that, on discharge from the Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Ms X was assessed by a highly specialised neurological physiotherapist and their team in the community to assist with her resettlement and to try a different stand aid. The physiotherapists trialled an electric stand hoist along with other aids but unsuccessful due to limited activity in the PA’s hips. As such, the therapy team decided it was not safe to continue pursuing standing at that time. The therapy team considered it was unsafe for Ms X to transfer using these aids and stopped due to risk of harm. The Trust says that, despite Ms X’s best efforts and a substantial amount of therapy input at the time, hoists were considered the safest way to transfer her. Ms X remained under the care of the community team, who worked with her to use her electric wheelchair.
56. It is not our role to decide what care a person should receive or how an organisation should deliver it. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the organisation made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
57. In making its decision, the therapy team took the relevant information and risks into account, weighed it up and reached a view based on safety. The therapy team could not continue with therapy when they considered it unsafe to do so. I acknowledge Ms X disagreed with this decision. However, I have not found fault with the way this decision was made.
58. Ms X says she has been paying for private sessions at £160-£200 a week since September 2022. This suggests that Ms X’s decision to have additional private therapy sessions are not wholly because of the decision to stop therapy in July 2024. It is open to Ms X to choose to engage in private therapy if she wishes. The OT has explained that the equipment Ms X was using in her private sessions would not have been available on the NHS. We have not found fault with the way the decision was made to stop her therapy sessions, therefore we would not recommend Ms X is reimbursed for these costs.
59. In late March 2025, Ms X advised the OT that she had been seeing a private physiotherapist and had made progress. As a result, Ms X was reviewed promptly by the community team in April 2025. Ms X showed signs of progress and was able to stand with equipment. The community team agreed to restart therapy sessions and Ms X has been seen regularly since. The therapy team took the changed circumstances into account and acted accordingly. I have not found fault on this point.

Care in bed

60. Ms X says her reablement care failed to promote independence, for example, not allowing her to wash her top half. Ms X says there was an incident where she was physically restrained by two carers from washing herself because it was ‘not allowed’. She says she was left bed bound, not allowed to sit out in a chair or try to stand.
61. Ms X’s care plan stated that she was to be encouraged to wash her upper body, with the goal to progress from bed care to washing in the bathroom. I have received the Care Agency’s daily records which record Ms X consistently completing her daily upper body care and later, her lower body care. Ms X’s reablement plan reviews also record she achieved this goal. Ms X disputes the Care Agency’s records.
62. Ms X’s care plan also included a goal to hoist her from bed to a chair to increase her sitting balance. The documents show the OT initially advised the Care Agency to care for Ms X in bed until a suitable hoist and sling had been arranged. The neurological physiotherapy team recommended Ms X was not to attempt standing with equipment outside of therapy sessions at that time. As such, the Care Agency were following advice from other professionals by completing Ms X’s care in bed. I have not found fault on this point.
63. On 4 June 2024, the neurological physiotherapy team confirmed Ms X could sit up without support and that sitting out in a chair was to be encouraged. The OT updated Ms X’s manual handling plan to say she could be hoisted out of bed to a chair. I have seen evidence the OT sent this to the Care Agency. The morning call visit was extended to account for this. However, Ms X was not consistently hoisted out of bed until early July 2024.
64. What happened over June 2024 is contested by Ms X and the Care Agency. The Care Agency insist Ms X completed her upper body care daily and declined to be hoisted from bed. Ms X strongly disputes this, saying she would never refuse to be hoisted unless she was unwell.
65. Ms X’s daily care records say she was initially upset by the hoist as she found the sling and the chair uncomfortable. It is recorded Ms X declined to be hoisted until this was resolved. The daily care records note Ms X was offered the opportunity to be hoisted several times over the next week but declined. However, after this week, the daily records do not consistently record why Ms X was not being hoisted.
66. On 19 June 2024, the Care Agency contacted the OT to raise concerns. The Care Agency said Ms X was unhappy with the equipment and was refusing to be hoisted.
67. On 25 June 2024, the Care Agency records note a phone call with the OT where the Care Agency said Ms X was not agreeing to come out of bed and it was therefore agreed for bed care to continue until further notice. However, the OT’s record of this phone call notes Ms X continued to be hoisted into a chair with no concerns. This phone note does not appear to be accurate as both Ms X and the Care Agency agree she was not being hoisted at this time, although the reason is disputed.
68. On 8 July 2024, the Care Agency spoke with the social worker by phone. The Care Agency records say it told the social worker Ms X was completing her upper body care independently and had hoisting equipment in place but declined to use it. The Council record of this conversation says Ms X was being hoisted regularly and the Care Agency completed all her care.
69. Later that day, the social worker visited Ms X. The Council records say Ms X raised complaints with the social worker that she was stuck in bed all day and was not being hoisted out or allowed to wash herself. Ms X said she wanted to sit out in her chair but carers told her she had to be cared for in bed.
70. The social worker spoke with the Care Agency again and discussed whether Ms X could be hoisted and wheeled to the bathroom for personal care. The Care Agency said accessing the bathroom was outside of the current care plan and they would need further guidance from the OT before they could agree to this.
71. The social worker contacted the physiotherapist, who confirmed Ms X could be hoisted into her chair daily and sit in her shower chair to complete personal care. The physiotherapist contacted the Care Agency to confirm this. From 8 July, the daily care records say Ms X was hoisted into her chair most mornings.
72. I have carefully considered all the Council and Care Agency records, along with Ms X’s account. There is some conflicting information between the social worker’s and the Care Agency’s records, in relation to whether Ms X was being hoisted out of bed and washing herself. Ms X’s recollections also contradict the Care Agency’s records.
73. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. On the balance of probabilities, I have found that the Care Agency’s records are accurate.
74. The Care Agency has provided transcripts of its phone calls with the social worker, which support its written records of the discussions. The transcripts confirm the Care Agency repeatedly told various professionals, including the social worker, OT and physiotherapist that Ms X was often declining to be hoisted. The transcripts also confirm the Care Agency telling the social worker Ms X was completing her own upper body care. These transcripts support a range of records including the daily care records and emails between professionals. This evidence is contemporaneous and provides a consistent narrative, from multiple sources.
75. I acknowledge Ms X strongly refutes this, and this does not align with her recollection of events. I recognise her strength of feeling on the matter.
76. Considering this evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms X was completing her own upper body care. I can see there were ongoing issues around hoisting. However, I have found, on the balance of probabilities, the Care Agency acted appropriately around hoisting based on its understanding of Ms X’s wishes at the time. I have not found fault on these points.
77. I have not found any record about Ms X being restrained or that she was physically not allowed to wash herself. Ms X says she was scared to report it at the time. There is insufficient evidence for me to be able to make a finding on this point.

Record keeping

78. During this investigation, there has been some confusion caused by contradictory records. Written records should be accurate. The social worker’s telephone notes do not reflect the Care Agency’s contemporaneous transcript of the call. The Care Agency’s daily records for June 2024 fail to properly record why Ms X remained in bed for most of June 2024. The daily records should be up to date to provide a clear picture of a person’s care for all visiting carers. As such, any difficulties around hoisting and the reasons for this should have been clearly recorded. It appears communication between the Council and the Care Agency during phone calls could have been clearer at times.
79. The Council and Care Agency’s records are not in line with Regulation 17. This is fault has caused avoidable confusion.

Wheelchair and ramp delays

80. Ms X complains about delays providing her with a wheelchair and installing ramps to her property. Ms X says she had been waiting for ramps since 2020, and without these she has been left housebound.
81. The Council says the delays installing ramps have been caused by a combination of complex factors. Ms X was initially referred for ramps in April 2020. Ms X then applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to build a wet room. As this could change the layout of her property, the ramp installation was paused while the DFG was processed. The Council has accepted there was some delay processing the DFG due to a backlog of cases but also noted difficulties obtaining financial information from Ms X to enable them to assess her contributions.
82. The Council says in 2023, Ms X was unhappy with the proposed wet room lay out and again ramps were paused due to possible changes to the property layout.
83. In July 2024, the DFG application was closed due to lack of financial information.
84. In August 2024, Ms X submitted a new DFG application. The Council has explained that DFGs are means tested and people may need to contribute to some or all of the costs. The means test found Ms X’s contribution would exceed the cost of the ramps. Ms X was therefore not eligible for the DFG as she was financially able to meet the full cost of the ramps herself.
85. I acknowledge Ms X is frustrated with the delay, and the Council backlog partially contributed to this. However, this was only one factor among several other leading to the full delay since 2020. It was appropriate for the Council to pause active work in relation to ramps where the layout of Ms X’s house could have changed. Some factors delaying the DFG were outside Council control, such as insufficient financial information being provided. Ms X had the means to install the ramps independently, if she wished. I have not found fault on this point.
86. The Trust has told me it reviewed Ms X on the neurological rehabilitation ward for a wheelchair in early May 2024. The wheelchair was ordered shortly after. In late July 2024, Ms X’s wheelchair was delivered to the Trust. The Trust says it attempted to hand the wheelchair over to Ms X on 25 July 2024 but she cancelled the appointment. The Trust says it visited Ms X in August 2024, who expressed her ongoing concerns about her rehabilitation. The Trust was unclear if Ms X would use the wheelchair so it was not delivered.
87. In late October 2024, Ms X contacted the wheelchair service to request a wheelchair to sit out in. The Trust booked a visit for 9 January 2025. However, Ms X cancelled it. Ms X’s wheelchair was successful handed over on 6 February 2025.
88. The Trust tried to deliver the wheelchair promptly in July 2025. The records show that, at that time, the therapists had paused Ms X’s standing practice and was shifting focus to wheelchair use. Ms X found this upsetting as she was keen to stand and walk. It was appropriate for the Trust not to deliver the wheelchair until Ms X wished to use it.
89. Once Ms X contacted the Trust to request the wheelchair, a visit was scheduled and the wheelchair was delivered. I have not found fault on this point.

Back to top

Action

Council

90. Within three months of my final decision statement, the Council will explain what action they will take to
• ensure its staff and care providers keep clear accurate records in line with Regulation 17; and
• ensure communication between its staff, care providers, service users and other professionals is effective.
91. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Trust

92. Within one month of my final decision statement, the Trust will:
• apologise to Ms X for poor communication and record keeping in relation to her discharge to the Care Home; and
• pay £150 to Ms X for frustration
93. Within three months of my final decision statement, the Trust will explain what action they will take to
• ensure patients are fully involved in discharge decisions and conversations are clearly recorded.
94. The Trust should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

95. I have found fault by the Trust in relation to Ms X’s discharge. As a result, Ms X has been caused frustration. I have found fault by the Council in relation to record keeping.
96. I have not found fault with the therapy Ms X received, her reablement care or delays providing equipment.
97. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman