Report Date


Case Against

Hywel Dda University Health Board



Case Reference Number



Not Upheld

Mrs A complained that her husband Mr A’s discharge from hospital on 8 April 2022 was unsafe as he was re-admitted the following day, and that he should not have been discharged late in the evening. She said that the decision to discharge her husband when he had COVID-19 meant that they were both put at risk. Finally, she said that the Health Board’s complaint response was not robust.

The Ombudsman was satisfied that a positive COVID-19 test does not mean that a patient needs to remain in hospital and given Mr A did not have any symptoms it was not warranted for him to remain in hospital for further treatment. More so given that Mr A wanted to go home and have treatment as an outpatient. From a record-keeping viewpoint, the Ombudsman noted that there was no record of any discussion with Mrs A about this, but the Health Board had already acknowledged this as a failing.

The Ombudsman’s investigation concluded that Mr A’s discharge was appropriate as he was clinically well and medically fit to be discharged on 8 April. The Ombudsman found it regrettable that there was a delay in Mr A being sent home, however, Mrs A was kept informed of the situation and the Ombudsman noted that issues relating to the ambulance service are not within the Health Board’s control. This part of Mrs A’s complaint was not upheld. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Health Board’s response was reasonable and appropriate and again did not uphold Mrs A’s complaint.