Summary: Ms X complained about how the care provider has treated her. She said the care provider refused to allow her access to her father’s information and refused to allow her to see him. We find the care provider was at fault for refusing to allow Ms X to see her father. This caused her significant distress. To address this injustice caused by fault we recommend the care provider apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about how the care provider has treated her. She said the care provider refused to allow her access to her father’s information and refused to allow her to see him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person complaining. I have used the term fault to describe this. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC), we will share this decision with CQC.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Ms X and the care provider.
6. Ms X and the care provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Covid-19 guidance on care home visiting

7. The Department of Health and Social Care released new guidance on 31 January 2022 which lifted visiting restrictions in care homes. The CQC guidance states their expectation remains that care homes follow the government guidance which was to ensure visiting was unrestricted.
8. The government guidance was updated on 23 April 2022 and stated only visitors providing personal care should test before visiting. The previous guidance stated all visitors should test before visiting.
9. Between March and April 2022, the guidance stated if there was an outbreak, care providers should continue to offer visits outdoors. This guidance was withdrawn 1 April 2022 with no further restrictions put in place.

Summary of key events

10. Ms X’s father, Mr Y, was admitted to the nursing home on 23 April 2022. His other daughter, Ms Z, held lasting power of attorney for health, welfare, estate and finances.
11. Ms X visited the home to take a picture of the notice on the door which said the home was closed until further notice. She said she needed it as proof she was not allowed to visit Mr Y.
12. Ms X spoke with Mr Y on the phone in April and May 2022. She called the home and said head office said she was an essential care giver and should be allowed access to the home. But the home explained they were shut due to Covid-19, and no visitors were allowed. They said they would discuss this with head office.
13. Mr Y was taken into hospital. Ms X called the home asking to speak with Mr Y. The staff explained they had written paperwork with her dad’s signature on it informing staff that he did not wish for her to know anything about his health and welfare. They advised Ms X to speak with Ms Z.
14. Mr Y sadly died on 9 May 2022.

Complaint to nursing home

15. Ms X said she made several complaints to the nursing home between July 2022 and June 2023. She said:
• she rang head office in April 2022 and was told she could have essential status and would get to see Mr Y. But said she never got a call back;
• why was she never given essential status; and
• she was next of kin but was told by the manager she would not be told any information regarding her dad’s welfare.
16. The care provider responded in July 2023. It said it received her complaint on 8 June 2023 and said her previous complaints had not been received as they had been sent to an incorrect email address. The care provider said:
• the manager of the nursing home was explicitly informed by Ms Z that under no circumstances was Ms X to be given access to Mr Y [other than direct telephone contact];
• they were also explicitly informed that Ms X was not to be informed of Mr Y’s health and well-being. Legal documentation was produced underlining this instruction; and
• head office was not aware of these constraints when Ms X rang them in April where she was promised essential status due to the Covid outbreak. The care provider apologised and said lessons had been learnt.

Analysis

17. Ms X said the nursing home refused to allow her access to her father’s information. Staff explained to Ms X written paperwork with her dad’s signature on it informing staff that he did not wish for her to know anything about his health and welfare. We have also seen evidence to support this. The nursing homes notes stated Mr Y had capacity. Therefore, the care provider had a duty to act on Mr Y’s wishes and we cannot criticise it. The care provider advised Ms X to speak with Ms Y.
18. Ms X said the nursing home refused to allow her access to see Mr Y. The staff explained to Ms X it could not allow visitors due to Covid-19. It said it was following government guidance. But as stated in paragraph 7 new guidance was issued in January 2022 which lifted visiting restrictions in care homes. Therefore, this is fault. This meant Ms X was not able to see her father.
19. There is evidence of further fault. In the care providers response to Ms X’s complaint, it said the manager of the nursing home was informed by Ms Z that under no circumstances was Ms X to be given access to Mr Y [other than direct telephone contact]. But as stated in paragraph 17, Mr Y had capacity. Within Mr Y’s care plan, he stated he would allow Ms X to visit him. I have seen no evidence to suggest the care provider considered Mr Y’s wishes.
20. Ms X was told by head office she could have essential status allowing her to see Mr Y. The care provider told Ms X head office was not aware of the constraints in place, as detailed in paragraph 13. This is fault. This caused distress to Ms X. The care provider has apologised. It said it has taken action to prevent a misunderstanding such as this in the future. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy.
21. Ms X told us she initially sent a letter to the home in July 2022 complaining. She said she had no response. I asked the care provider to send me all correspondence it had from Ms X and this letter was not provided. We could not now prove whether the nursing home received this letter.

Back to top

Recommended action

22. To address the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision, the Care Provider should:
• apologise to Ms X for the fault identified in this statement; and
• pay Ms X £300 to acknowledge the distress caused to her by the fault identified in this statement.
23. The Care Provider should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms X’s complaint. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice the organisation has not yet agreed to carry out.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman