Published
12.12.2024 7:52:00

Deputy-Ombudsman Maija Sakslin issued a reprimand to the wellbeing services county and the service provider about delays and shortcomings in preparedness for disruptions in the care alarm service. 

The client, who was aged over 80, made several alarms on their wrist alarm after having fallen. When the care workers arrived almost two hours after the first alarm, the client had already passed away. The response time for assistance visits in accordance with the agreement between the wellbeing services county and the care alarm service was 60 minutes.

The Deputy-Ombudsman notes that the delay in the implementation of the service was significant and the shortcomings in the quality of the service had been extremely serious in the client’s situation. The employees did not have a clear understanding of how to act in the event of congestion in the care alarm service and its back-up service. The Deputy-Ombudsman finds it evident that the long waiting time and the lack of help and presence of another person had caused anxiety to the client before the client passed away. According to the decision made in the police investigation, the cause of death and the category of death were a disease. 

The Deputy-Ombudsman finds it particularly reprehensible that appropriate organisation of the service that was so important for the client’s health and safety was not ensured despite the fact that the call alarm service had already been subject to oversight of legality by the supervisory authorities for a long time. The Deputy-Ombudsman also investigated the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health Valvira’s actions in carrying out supervision.

Obligation to act on information received over telephone

An ambulance was not called for the client until when the care workers from the call alarm service arrived, even though according to the guidelines, the emergency number should already be called when an emergency situation is identified on the basis of alarms from an emergency call. 

Deputy-Ombudsman Sakslin: “Shortcomings in the actions of the wellbeing services county and the service provider jeopardised the implementation of the client's indispensable care, which is secured by the Constitution. Both the wellbeing services county and the service provider must improve self-monitoring and preparedness for disruptions. I also remind them of the liability for acts in office and possible criminal sanctions for negligence in the provision of rescue services.” 

Because of the seriousness of the shortcomings observed in this matter, the Deputy-Ombudsman has also begun to investigate on her own initiative how the implementation of call alarm services has been secured in case of disruptions in all wellbeing services counties and in Helsinki.

The Deputy-Ombudsman's decisions 6328/2023 and 5457/2024 have been published (in Finnish) on the Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

Further information is available from Principal Legal Adviser Lotta Hämeen-Anttila, tel. +358 9 432 3353.