Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care provider giving incorrect medical information to the ambulance service and for losing some personal items. This is because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about a care provider giving incorrect medical information to the ambulance service. She says the care provider should have recognised her mother was having signs of a stroke and should have told the ambulance service this. Mrs X also complains the care provider lost some of her mother’s personal items after her death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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’s mother, Mrs B lived in a care home. In November 2021, the care home called the emergency services as Mrs B could not move her right arm and leg. It was noted Mrs X could speak normally and there were no facial symptoms. The care home contacted the emergency service again to update after Mrs B became less responsive and unable to speak.
6. Mrs X she said the care home gave information to the ambulance service that her mother had a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. She said this led the ambulance service to delay sending out paramedics to her mother.
7. The Council explained to Mrs X care staff were not medically trained and were expected to provide all information to paramedics to ensure nothing was missed. The Council apologised that staff was not clearer that the diagnosis of Parkinson’s was not confirmed.
8. Even if we were to investigate, we would not be able to say what would have happened if care staff had been clearer when it provided information, or how this would have affected the ambulance service’s response to the emergency call. Therefore, I will not investigate this complaint as an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Finally, the Council acknowledged it lost some of Mrs B’s personal items and it has offered to compensate Mrs X for the cost of the item that was lost. The Council also confirmed it had changed the way it stored personal items when an individual is admitted to hospital. We are satisfied this is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
10. Therefore, further investigation by us would not add to the Council’s investigation and would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation could not add to the Council’s investigation and would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman