Decision search
Your search has 379 results
-
Churchill Health Care Ltd (20 008 754)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 18-Jun-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the quality of care provided to his father Mr Y. There were issues with communication between the care provider and Mr Y about late calls or staffing changes, and the support plan was not clear about which domestic tasks staff would carry out. This was fault and is likely to have caused Mr Y some anxiety. There was no fault in the way the care provider decided it could not support Mr Y with a bath or in the way it reached the decision to end the care package. It has already undertaken procedural changes to address these faults. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £100 to acknowledge the impact of the faults.
-
Swimbridge House Nursing home (20 006 536)
Report Upheld Charging 15-Jun-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained about care home charges for her mother, Mrs Z. The complaint relates to a period from November 2018 when the Council took over funding for the placement. Mrs X says the failure of the Council and the Care Home to come to an agreement about the costs caused stress and uncertainty and ultimately resulted in the home giving Mrs Z notice to leave and having to move to a new home.
-
Platinum Community Care Limited (20 006 080)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Jun-2021
Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that Platinum Community Care Limited overcharged Mrs Y for care provision. Miss X complains the care provider sent two carers per visit when Mrs Y only required one. Miss X says this caused financial loss to Mrs Y. We have found fault by the care provider who has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused.
-
Statement Upheld Other 07-Jun-2021
Summary: Miss X complained about the way Prime Life Limited (the care provider) treated her late father, Mr Y’s Funded Nursing Care (FNC) payments between September and November 2019. The care provider was at fault for failing to provide a clear contract or explain from the outset how it treats and handles FNC payments. This caused Miss X uncertainty. The care provider agreed to provide Mr Y’s estate with a partial refund of FNC payments it received. It also agreed to review and revise its contracts to make it clear how it treats and uses a resident’s FNC payments.
-
Royal Bay Care Homes Ltd (20 008 745)
Statement Upheld Covid-19 07-Jun-2021
Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider handled her mother, Mrs Z, roughly during a visit. Miss X also complained the Care Provider banned her and her family from visiting and then gave Mrs Z notice to leave the Care Home without proper reasons. We cannot come to a conclusion on whether Mrs Z was handled roughly. The Care Provider was not at fault for how it decided to ban Miss X. It was at fault for banning the rest of the family and for giving Mrs Z notice. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make sure it has a process in place for dealing with difficult relationships.
-
Cornwallis Care Services Ltd (20 001 924)
Statement Upheld Residential care 03-Jun-2021
Summary: Ther was fault in the way the Home assessed Miss C’s risk of falls, its care planning and its actions after Miss C suffered two falls. The Home also did not properly respond to Mrs B’s complaints. The Home has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her £350.
-
Romford Baptist Church Housing Association Limited (20 002 932)
Statement Upheld Residential care 28-May-2021
Summary: the complainant complained the Care Provider caused her late mother an injustice by failing to provide suitable care for her including reporting an injury and other lapses in care. The Care Provider said it investigated complaints and as a result undertook staff training and improvements. The Care Provider says it designed the service based on information presented by the complainant. On the information we have gathered we find the Care Provider caused an injustice for which it apologises and will pay £150.
-
Four Seasons Homes No.4 Limited (20 005 651)
Statement Upheld Covid-19 28-May-2021
Summary: Mrs D complains about the Care Provider’s actions during the COVID-19 lockdown while her father was resident at Windsor House Care Home. We have found that some of the Care Provider’s actions caused injustice to Mrs D. It has agreed to apologise.
-
Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (20 005 399)
Statement Upheld Covid-19 25-May-2021
Summary: Mrs X and Mrs Y complain about the care their mother (Mrs Z) received at Care UK’s Britten Court in the weeks leading to her death in April 2020 and the failure to arrange suitable contact with her during lockdown. There are gaps in Mrs Z’s records and Care UK was not as open with Mrs X when responding to her complaint. This has caused avoidable distress for which it needs to apologise.
-
White Ash Brook (Accrington) Limited (20 008 135)
Statement Upheld Residential care 25-May-2021
Summary: Miss X complained the Care Provider, White Ash Brook Care Home, did not return her father, Mr Y’s belongings after he died. She further complained the Care Provider could not explain what had happened to them and repeatedly misinformed her about what it was doing to find them. She said this caused her and her family significant distress. There was fault in the Care Provider’s actions. It was unable to provide a record of Mr Y’s belongings and did not properly communicate with Miss X. This caused Miss X distress and inconvenience. The Care Provider has made changes to its process to ensure this does not happen again and agreed to provide an apology and a £275 financial award to recognise the injustice caused to Miss X.