Summary: We will not investigate a complaint about the conduct of a conversation with a patient at their hospital bedside, or about discharge planning or complaint handling. It is unlikely an investigation would find a significant outstanding injustice related to these matters.

The complaint

1. Mr E complains about the conduct of two professionals during a bedside conversation with his wife, Mrs E, in hospital in February 2026. One professional was working for London Borough of Sutton Council (the Council) and the other for Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust).
2. Mr E said professionals inappropriately conducted the sensitive interview:

• on an open ward without privacy,
• without having advised Mrs E of their plans to interview her in advance, and
• without arranging to have a trusted person or advocate with Mrs E.

3. Mr E said this event caused Mrs E distress.
4. Mr E also complains the organisations failed to complete full assessments when arranging Mrs E’s discharge from hospital. Specifically, that staff failed to properly consider his health and responsibilities at that time. Mr E said inadequate discharge planning caused problems.
5. Mr E also raised concerns that, after he complained to the Council, the Council refused to log it as a formal complaint and did not address his concerns. Mr E said this caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

6. 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).
7. When investigating complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that during an investigation, we will weigh up the available evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
8. We cannot decide what level of care is appropriate and adequate for any individual. This is a matter of professional judgement and a decision that the relevant organisation has to make. Therefore, our investigations focus on the way organisations make their decisions.
9. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies.
  (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

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr E, the Council and the Trust as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I invited Mr E to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments he made before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

12. Mrs E went into hospital in the autumn of 2025. Toward the end of December the Trust referred Mrs E to the Council to ask for its support in arranging suitable care and support in the community, to allow Mrs E to leave hospital.
13. In February 2026 Mrs E remained in hospital. After a professionals meeting early in the month a Trust mental capacity lead and a Council social worker agreed to visit Mrs E together to ask her views about leaving hospital.
14. The two professionals visited Mrs E at her hospital bedside in early February.
15. Several days later Mr E emailed the social worker and complained the professionals’ conversation with Mrs E had breached her privacy. He said Mrs E told him they had discussed “substantial private matters…at length” and this was overheard by other patients in the bay. Mr E also said the professionals should have told Mrs E their plans to conduct such an interview in advance. And he said they should have given her the opportunity to have someone present to support and advocate for her.
16. Mr E also noted concerns that no one had thought to investigate his and Mrs E’s home situation, including his health and ability to support Mrs E. Mr E said, despite not having done this, the professionals had inappropriately taken a view that Mrs E was “bed blocking”.
17. Mr E asked the social worker to send this email to her manager for investigation.
18. Mrs E left hospital in early March 2026. The Council arranged reablement support for Mrs E and provided equipment for the home.
19. Several days later, around a month after his email to the social worker, Mr E complained to the Council that he had not received a response.
20. The Council replied the next day. It said the social worker had adhered to their statutory duties when completing needs assessments and capacity assessments. It said it would not log Mr E’s concerns under its complaints procedure.
21. The Council later agreed to investigate Mr E’s complaint and provided a written response towards the end of April. The Trust responded to Mr E’s complaint about these events in late-June.
22. In the Council’s response it said:

• Because of limited space in hospitals, social workers often need to communicate with patients at the bedside, while considering privacy.
• The conversation with Mrs E was a necessary and proportionate part of discharge planning, and it had been correct to allow Mrs E to express her own views.
• Mrs E was able to explain her own views and wishes and had the capacity to make her own decisions about her post-discharge care. The Council said, as such, there was no need to refer Mrs E to an independent advocate or an independent mental capacity advocate.

23. In its complaint response the Trust said:

• Mrs E’s need for oxygen restricted the meeting to her bed space.
• Staff drew the curtains around Mrs E’s bed for privacy.
• Staff introduced themselves and Mrs E consented to their visit. And staff did not have any concerns about Mrs E’s capacity to engage in the conversation.
• Mrs E engaged in the conversation well throughout and volunteered a lot of information. Staff did not see any signs of distress during the meeting.
• Staff kept an “empathetic active listening approach”.

24. However, both the Council and the Trust apologised if Mrs E, on reflection, had felt uncomfortable with the meetings held in the hospital.
25. In regard to wider discharge planning, both the Council and the Trust said they had involved Mr E in discussions and meetings. They did not identify any failings in this regard.

Analysis

26. An investigation of these events would need to take account of Mrs E’s recollections, along with Mr E’s memories of what Mrs E told him about what happened. We would also consider the professionals’ records of their visit.
27. It is more likely than not that this would leave the Ombudsmen with conflicting accounts of what took place, with no realistic, proportionate way of resolving this. Without clear evidence to support one version over the other, we could not reasonably dismiss the professionals’ accounts about the bedside visit or justify preferring Mr E and Mrs E’s accounts.
28. Mr E has noted that other patients and members of staff could have overheard what was said. However, we do not have a claim of any particular person having heard any specific information.
29. Overall, in regard to the conversation at Mrs E’s bedside, there is no realistic prospect of us making a clear determination about what happened, or a finding of fault which led to a significant injustice to either Mr or Mrs E.
30. The organisations have also set out details of how Mrs E’s needs were considered, including via a home assessment and through several family meetings. The Council arranged follow-up after Mrs E left hospital and it is apparent that professionals have kept Mrs E’s care and support under review in the community. It appears unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsmen would find evidence of fault in the way either the Trust or the Council planned for Mrs E’s discharge.
31. After its initial rejection of Mr E’s complaint the Council investigated his concerns and provided a written response. The Trust also responded to Mr E’s complaint. Both organisations also offered to meet with Mr E and Mrs E should they consider that to be helpful. In this context, while Mr E’s frustration with the Council’s initial response is understandable, there is not a significant enough outstanding injustice to warrant the Ombudsmen’s involvement.

Back to top

Decision

32. We will not investigate Mr E’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would be able to find evidence of an unremedied injustice significant enough to warrant the Ombudsmen’s involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman