Residential care archive 2020-2021

Archive has 238 results

  • Palm Court Care (Dawlish) Limited (20 008 195)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X was not named as Mr B’s contact when he was in the care home. The care provider notified the late Mr B’s sister, whom he had named as his primary contact, when he died. It was not the fault of the care provider that Ms X did not learn of his death for some months.

  • Foxley Lodge Care Ltd (19 015 433)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 30-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way Foxley Lodge Care Ltd (the Care Provider) gave notice to the late Mrs Y and did not deal adequately with his complaint about this. We found the Care Provider did not follow the correct procedure in giving notice and did not deal with Mr X’s complaint adequately. This caused Mr X significant distress. We have recommended it apologise and take action to prevent similar faults in future.

  • Culpeper Care Limited (20 005 262)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 30-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was fault in the care home’s failure to properly check the identity of an agency care worker and in the failure to carry out the necessary Covid-19 checks. Mr C did not receive the one-to-one care he should have done during the morning. In addition, one of the care workers breached Mr C’s dignity and right to privacy by taking a photo of him. There was further fault in the Home’s actions after it discovered the incidents and in its complaint responses. We recommend the Home apologises, acknowledges the fault and pays £300 to Mr C’s daughter.

  • Salford City Council (19 020 726)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding investigations regarding her daughter and about not having enough respite care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept it now. There is also no evidence Mrs B has complained to the Council about the lack of respite care she is getting.

  • B & M Care/Colleycare Ltd (19 015 919)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that a care provider failed to properly assess his mother’s needs and should not have accepted her as a resident. He complained about aspects of the care provided. We found no fault in the care provider’s decision to accept her as a resident or its decision that it could meet Mrs X’s needs. We found there was a failure to carry out a risk assessment, but this caused no significant injustice.

  • Bupa Care Homes (BNH) Limited (19 015 918)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2021

    Summary: We found that Allington Court Care Home failed to maintain appropriate records, failed to properly monitor Mr X’s mother’s food and fluid intake and did not pass on accurate information to another care home. Mr X also complained that Allington Court wrongly influenced decisions taken about his mother’s eligibility for CHC. We found no fault in this respect. We recommended a remedy to recognise that the family were left with some uncertainty about the impact of the fault on their mother.

  • RV Care Homes Limited (20 000 904)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 26-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complained about the standard of residential care provided to her late mother, Mrs E, by the Care Provider from March 2017 to August 2019. We find the Care Provider caused an injustice when it failed to provide proper care and treatment to the late Mrs E. In addition to the remedy it has already offered, the Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to issue Mrs D with a further apology and implement service improvements to ensure the problems do not reoccur.

  • MACC Care Limited (20 004 133)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 25-Mar-2021

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about the poor quality of care her mother received during the three months she spent at Wulfrun Rose Nursing Home. The care home has agreed to waive the outstanding care fees which remedies any injustice caused.

  • Tree Vale Limited (20 005 351)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 25-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Care Provider. There was no written contract for Ms Y’s care and no grounds to increase a previously agreed fee and attempt to backdate that increase. The Care Provider failed to act in line with the law and guidance from the Care Quality Commission and Consumer and Markets Authority. It will apologise to Ms X and make her a symbolic payment of £150 for her time and trouble.

  • Nottingham City Council (19 018 460)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 23-Mar-2021

    Summary: Dr A has complained in relation to the care of her mother at a Care Home and the delay in a fast-track application for Continuing Healthcare funding. We do not find fault with the care provided or the delay in the application that caused Dr A the injustice has claimed.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings