Archive has 160 results
-
Derwent Residential Care Limited (19 006 569)
Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Feb-2020
Summary: The care provider was not at fault in deciding not to readmit the late Mrs X to a residential placement once her nursing needs were evident. It could have communicated at an earlier stage with her family about Mrs X’s increasing needs. It has already apologised and taken action to review its systems, however, and those actions have remedied any injustice to Mrs X’s family.
-
Dormy Care Communities (Hereford) Limited (19 013 078)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 18-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the care provider’s decision it could no longer offer her mother, Mrs B, a placement at its care home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the care provider.
-
Sanctuary Care (South West) Limited (19 016 039)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 18-Feb-2020
Summary: Ms X complained about the care her mother, Mrs Y, received at a care home, and about items having gone missing. We will not investigate this late complaint. There is not a good reason the issues were not raised sooner after Mrs Y passed away, which was in 2016.
-
St. Philips Care Limited (19 004 371)
Statement Upheld Residential care 17-Feb-2020
Summary: There was some delay before Mrs X was assessed for NHS funding but that did not cause any injustice. The fee waiver already offered by the care provider is sufficient to remedy the inconvenience caused by the delay.
-
Norfolk County Council (19 013 855)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 14-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s respite stay. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mr X has already received. Also, the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
-
Kent County Council (19 001 507)
Statement Upheld Residential care 13-Feb-2020
Summary: Mrs C complains the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about Mr D. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. It followed safeguarding procedures and reached a reasoned decision. While it is clear Mr D had a marked deterioration in his health, I am unable to say that the Council did not take appropriate action or there was service failure by the Care Provider. The Council is however at fault for failing to deal with Mrs C’s complaint properly and including irrelevant, uncorroborated information about Mrs C and Mr D in the safeguarding investigation.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 13-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care provider misplacing the complainant’s dentures. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. The complainant can also make a claim through the courts if she believes the care provider is responsible for the loss.
-
Mr John Graham Haslam & Mrs Jennifer Mary Bailey (19 003 763)
Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020
Summary: The care provider failed to provide safe and appropriate care which met Mrs X’s needs. As a result she suffered pressure sores and a loss of dignity as well as delay in obtaining medical attention. The care provider will offer a payment to Mrs X in recognition of the distress caused by its failures.
-
Lancashire County Council (19 006 812)
Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020
Summary: The Council was responsible for Mrs X’s care and failed to ensure the right provision was in place for her to remain in the care home where she was settled. The Council apologises for the way in which Mrs X’s placement ended and agrees a payment in acknowledgement that the unwanted move caused unnecessary distress.
-
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 973)
Statement Not upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation into poor care at Cherry Tree House care home. Mrs D’s records have been destroyed in a flooding incident and an investigation is therefore impossible. The Home has agreed to pay Mrs D’s daughter £400 in recognition of its failure to provide the records.