Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the care she received from her care provider in 2017, This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider’s response and could not make a different finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complained to the care provider in November 2017 about the quality of care she had received and specifically the way carers dealt with an incident which occurred in June 2017 when Mrs A scalded herself. Mrs A says because the care provider cancelled the emergency services on the evening of the incident and treated her burns with cream, her health deteriorated, she was left in excruciating pain and had to pay unnecessarily for 24-hour respite care in a home following discharge from hospital. Mrs A says she had no acknowledgement or apology from the care provider. In addition Mrs A says she:

• suffered an injury when she was transferred from the wheelchair to the commode by the worker handling the hoist and feels staff are not properly trained how to use the hoist;
• fell two feet while being hoisted;
• carers often forgot to leave the light on when leaving, would move the TV remote or forget to put it back in easy reach leaving her in the dark until the morning, ignored the checklist she completed, put pads in the kitchen bin instead of putting them in the clinical waste, gave her a broken glass to drink out of and did not clear up the mess .

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the action has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation provided by Mrs A and the care provider. I sent Mrs A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs A complained to the Ombudsman in March 2018 about the Council’s failure to consider her complaints about the care she received in 2017. The care provider says it received a complaint from Mrs A in November 2017 and responded the following week. It said carers noticed when they attended on the evening of 20 June 2017 that Mrs A could not stand unaided. It contacted the Council the following day who agreed Mrs A needed double handed calls to assist with mobilising. When carers attended on the evening of 29 June they discovered Mrs A had burned herself and called an ambulance. The care provider’s response says Mrs A asked carers to find her neighbour who is a GP. The neighbour attended, looked at the wounds and suggested the carer apply cream. The care provider’s response says it was Mrs A and her neighbour who decided the emergency call should be cancelled not the carers. The following day carers attended at 10:30am and noticed the wound looked severe. They called an ambulance and Mrs A was taken to hospital.
5. Mrs A disputes the care providers response and says she did not say the call to the emergency services should be cancelled on the evening of the incident. The Ombudsman could not make a finding on this point when he was not present and there are differing accounts of what was said in a conversation. He could not say the deterioration in Mrs A’s health and need for 24-hour residential care are because of the care provider’s actions.
6. Mrs A says because she was hoisted incorrectly, she suffered an injury to her buttock and on a different occasion was dropped two feet from the hoist. The care provider’s response says the injury Mrs A complained of was a deep tissue injury not a tear. It was monitored and recorded on 12 July the area had become red and sore and referred to the Tissue Viability Team.
7. The Ombudsman could not say what caused the injury even if he investigated. The care provider says there is no report or record of a fall from the hoist and carers deny hoisting Mrs A alone. Although Mrs A disputes this, the Ombudsman could not say what happened on this occasion.
8. The care provider apologised if at times carers forgot to put the light on and moved the TV remote but disputed the date and time Mrs A said carers broke the glass. It apologised that Mrs A was dissatisfied with the service she received and assured her all staff had full mandatory training and if necessary, further training. The Ombudsman could not add to this.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman