Summary: Mr A complains the Council caused delays in Mrs B being discharged from hospital because it did not complete its safeguarding enquiries quickly. We will not investigate this complaint further because we found no fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains Hampshire County Council took many weeks to investigate a safeguarding issue that was raised about his behaviour towards his wife, Mrs B, by ambulance crew. Mr A does not understand why it took so long and why the Council did not speak to his wife sooner.
2. Mr A explains this delayed Mrs B leaving hospital. This caused Mrs B a lot of distress, she was constantly asking to go home. Mr A was distressed by seeing his wife so upset and was also unable to plan for her to come home as he did not know when she would.
3. Mr A would like an explanation about what happened and why it took so long, and reassurances other patients and their families are not placed in the same position.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. We have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015 a single team has considered these complaints acting for both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
5. The Ombudsmen provide a free service but we 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
6. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered all the information provided to us by Mr A.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Mrs B went to hospital in an ambulance on 5 September 2022. When at her house, ambulance crew worried about the way Mr A spoke to Mrs B, and their staff members. They were also concerned about the way he grabbed Mrs B’s arm. As he was her full-time carer, the ambulance Trust sent a safeguarding concern to the Council.
10. The Care Act 2014, section 42 says a council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. This process is known as safeguarding.

What happened

11. Mrs B went into hospital on 5 September 2022. She stayed in hospital to receive treatment. Mr A believes the Council prevented her leaving hospital and took many weeks to finish their safeguarding enquiries.
12. The hospital told the Council she was well enough to leave hospital on 11 October 2022. A social worker was allocated and visited Mrs B on 13 October to discuss what happened and ask her opinion about what happened. The social worker found Mrs B struggled to communicate in English, her preferred language was French.
13. On 14 October, the social worker worked with hospital staff to obtain an over the phone translator to support Mrs B. On 19 October, the social worker went to the hospital to see Mrs B again with the support of the over the phone interpreter. There were still difficulties so it was decided a face-to-face interpreter would be needed.
14. The Council explained its language support service said it would be a wait of two weeks before it could arrange a face-to-face interpreter. As Mrs B was ready to leave hospital, it did not want to delay this for her, so it considered other options.
15. An assistant team manager within the Council spoke French and agreed to act as an interpreter. On 21 October, the social worker and the assistant team manager visited Mrs B in hospital and spoke to her.
16. The conversation led to the concern being closed with no further action, Mr A was told the outcome the same day.
17. Completing a safeguarding concern is part of the discharge process. It would not be appropriate for the Council to speak to someone who was not medically well enough to leave hospital and so while there was a delay in the Council speaking to her, this was because she was not ready to leave hospital.
18. Any delay by the Council could only be seen to be 10 days. Any delay before this was because Mrs B was not well enough, not because the safeguarding concern had not been completed. The delays would have been less had an interpreter not been needed. I do not consider the delay of 10 days to be significant for the reasons explained. When the Council started their enquiries, it progressed it as quickly as they could, therefore I can find no fault with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint as we find no fault with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman