An Essex woman was not able to spend as much time as she wanted with her husband in his final weeks because the county council moved him to a care placement further away from the family home, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
The man, who had dementia, had been living in a care home close to his wife. But Essex County Council decided to move him to one 40 minutes away because it was a cheaper option when his needs changed. Because it was so far away, his wife could not visit as often as she liked. The man died six weeks after moving to the new home.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found the council moved the man without following a ‘best interests’ decision process, and did not provide a full explanation in writing of its decision to refuse a different accommodation option which the man’s wife preferred. And when the woman complained, the move was not put on hold until it responded to her complaint.
The investigation also found Essex County Council failed to fully explore the option of the man remaining in the care home he was originally placed in, with his wife paying top-up fees to enable him to do so. The council did not carry out an assessment of the wife’s finances to allow her to make an informed decision about the viability of this arrangement.
The Ombudsman also found the council did not consider the impact the move might have on the couple’s human rights and their right to private and family life.
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal said:
“This is a distressing case where a couple have been separated in the days and weeks leading up to a man’s passing.
“While I cannot say that the move would not have happened had the council followed the proper procedures. The wife has been left distressed not knowing whether things could have turned out differently.
“The council chose to move the man even while his wife was raising her concerns about the impact this would have, and she has told me she felt ignored and not respected throughout the process. Sadly, this was avoidable distress that she endured due to how the council managed the situation.
“The council has agreed to my recommendations to improve its service – I hope this will ensure relatives’ voices are heard when making decisions which affect their loved ones.”
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the wife and pay her £500 to recognise the injustice caused by its failings. This is in addition to the £500 the council has already offered her.
The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to a number of measures, including that it reminds officers of their duties around taking best interest decisions when deciding care arrangements, and the right process to follow for people who have deprivation of liberty safeguards in place before moving them.
The council will also review its process for considering top up payments to ensure that when the person expresses interest in that option they are provided with the relevant information. It will also ensure that when it moves a person in residential care which is not their choice, it offers an explanation of why it has refused their preferred accommodation.
Discussion about this post