A woman whose father died in Causeway Hospital complained that staff should have monitored him more closely.

Read our full investigation report here.

Rebecca Hilsenrath has been appointed interim Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Rebecca’s appointment follows the departure of Rob Behrens whose seven-year tenure ended in March 2023.

Rebecca has been CEO of PHSO since June 2023 and before that was the Director of Strategy.

Gill Kilpatrick, who is currently PHSO’s Chief Operating Officer and Deputy CEO, has been promoted to interim CEO following nine years at the organisation.

Rebecca said:

“I am immensely humbled and honoured to be selected as interim Ombudsman. My predecessor, Rob, has left an extraordinary legacy of passion for public justice, dedication to improving public service and driving transformation within PHSO itself.

“It is a privilege to build on the work that has already been done. Alongside Gill’s appointment as CEO, and with Karl Banister as the Deputy Ombudsman, we have a strengthened leadership team with the appointment of a new Director of Strategy and a Chief Digital Information Officer to achieve our ambition of being a leading Ombudsman Service. We all look forward to continue delivering a service that helps those who have been let down by public services access the justice they deserve.”

PSOW announced last week that an independent review will take place to provide assurance that there has been no bias in its decision making and that the organisation continues to deliver an independent, fair and impartial service.  This follows the recent resignation of a member of staff following inappropriate and unacceptable social media posts.

I recognise that it is essential that this review has the confidence of the Senedd and stakeholders across local government.  Whilst I remain confident that James Goudie KC would have carried out the review with integrity, impartiality and professionalism, it is evident that concerns have been expressed by several people.

I have listened to these views and have concluded that to continue would lead to a lack of confidence in the review and its findings. I have therefore reconsidered the appointment and will be seeking another person to lead this work instead.

A Staffordshire care provider has refused to refund a man’s estate after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found it put too restrictive care in place for the last nine months of his life.

The man, who had dementia, attempted to take his own life while living in the Barrowhill Hall Care Home in Rocester, run by MOP Healthcare Ltd. Consequently, the care home put in place one-to-one care for 24 hours a day.

This cost the family an extra £2,520 a week. The family complained that the man did not need this level of care, particularly when his dementia progressed, and it was draining the man’s resources. They said as result, he had paid more than £100,000 for this care on top of his normal fees.

An Ombudsman investigation found MOP Healthcare Ltd did not properly assess the man’s mental capacity after he attempted to take his life, and failed to progress a legal document called a ‘Deprivation of Liberty safeguard’ properly.

The company did not consider other less-restrictive options for his care, despite his social worker and a community psychiatric nurse advising he could be kept safe with less limiting measures in place.

The Ombudsman asked MOP Healthcare Ltd to pay the family £1,000 for the distress of having to bring the complaint and review its staff training and how it tracks Deprivation of Liberty safeguards applications to its local council, to ensure similar faults do not happen again. The provider has agreed to these recommendations.

However, the Ombudsman also asked the provider to consider the lower cost had it accepted professionals’ recommendations to reduce the level of care and pay the man’s estate the difference. It has not agreed to carry out this recommendation.

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“The provider has told us it will not pay the financial recommendation we have made because it says the family could have moved the man from his home at any time.

“I am not satisfied with this provider’s response. It shows no regard for the distress faced by the family witnessing their relative under constant supervision for the last nine months of his life, to the extent this was not lifted even when he was receiving end of life care.

“I will be sharing our findings with the care regulator, the Care Quality Commission.”