Summary: Ms B complained that the Council and Trust failed to involve her in discharge planning for Ms C. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the responses Ms B has already received.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) and Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to involve her in hospital discharge planning for Ms C. Ms B says that even though she was listed in Ms C’s records as her next of kin, the Council and Trust did not consult her for her views.
2. Ms B also complains that the Council and Trust have not shared information with her in response to subject access requests.
3. Ms B said that since she was excluded from discharge planning, the organisations involved in Ms C’s ongoing care and support will not communicate with her about what is happening. Ms B said this caused her great distress, and has had a significant impact on her relationship with Ms C.
4. As an outcome of her complaint, Ms B wants the Council to acknowledge that she was not consulted, notes to be added to Ms C’s records to reflect this, and to prevent this from happening to anyone else.

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. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we 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. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify their involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
  (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms B, the Council and the Trust, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
9. Ms B had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Ms B complained the Trust and Council excluded her from discussions about where Ms C would go after leaving hospital. Ms B was listed on Ms C’s records as her next of kin. Ms B explained she lived near to Ms C and provided her with regular support.
11. There was no lasting power of attorney (LPA) in place. An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves.
12. The Council social work team were involved in planning Ms C’s discharge from hospital. In doing so, the Council gathered information from the Trust, Ms C and her family members. However, Ms B said the Council and Trust failed to include her in these discussions and relied on other relatives’ views. She said this meant Ms C was discharged without Ms B’s views being heard.
13. The 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.
14. The guidance says NHS bodies and local authorities should ensure that, where appropriate, unpaid carers and family members are involved in discharge decisions.
15. In responding to Ms B’s complaint, the Council acknowledged it did not contact her about a new social worker being allocated. The Council apologised to Ms B for this. The Council said its role was to consult not only the next of kin but other family members. The response said the Council had communicated with Ms B earlier in Ms C’s hospital admission, but did not give any specific reason for not consulting Ms B during the discharge planning process.
16. I recognise it must have been distressing for Ms B not to have been more involved during discharge planning. I understand Ms B considers there is a link between the discharge planning process and the ongoing situation she has told us of, where she says she the organisations are not sharing information or involving her in Ms C’s care. However, even if we investigated and found fault with the discharge process, it is unlikely we could add to the response Ms B has already received. This is because it is unlikely we could establish a link between the discharge process itself, and the current impact Ms B considers this has had.
17. With regard to Ms B’s complaint about the Trust, the Trust accepted it had not updated Ms B on the day Ms C left hospital. The Trust apologised to Ms B for this. It also accepted its records did not specify by name which family member staff had spoken to. The Trust said it would remind staff to note the names of family members they spoke to in future so that the records are clear.
18. As the Trust has apologised and taken steps to improve services, it is unlikely we could add to this response by investigating Ms B’s complaint about the Trust.
19. Ms B also complained that the Trust and Council have not responded fully to subject access requests she has made. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. If Ms B remains dissatisfied with the Trust and Council’s responses to her subject access requests, the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider those concerns.

Back to top

Decision

20. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council and the Trust. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the responses Ms B has already received, or establish a direct link between any fault by the organisations and the current impact Ms B considers this has had.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman