Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The care agency told Mr X it would be able to meet his late mother’s care needs when she was discharged from hospital. After assessing her needs, it decided it could not. It has apologised to Mr X. Any further investigation by this office would not achieve any more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his late mother, Mrs Y. He says the care provider promised to provide care following Mrs Y’s discharge from hospital. On discharge it said it did not have the capacity, staff wise, to provide the new care package.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint, and correspondence between Mr X and the care provider. Mr X and the care agency had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this document.

Back to top

What I found

5. Prior to Mrs Y’s hospital admission, she received care from the agency once a week to assist with bathing. During this time Mr X says a number of different ‘managers’ dealt with his mother.
6. On 23 June 2019, Mr X telephoned the care agency and spoke to a care coordinator to say his mother had been admitted to hospital and the next planned visit would need to be cancelled. Mr X says during the conversation the officer told him the care agency would pick up Mrs Y’s care when she was discharged from hospital and told Mr X not to worry and to contact the office again when Mrs Y was discharged from hospital.
7. Mr X says doctors at the hospital were reluctant to allow Mrs Y home without guaranteed care provision in place. Discharged was agreed based on the assurances the care agency gave to Mr X. Mrs Y returned home on Thursday 27 June 2019. Mr X arranged for the care agency to visit on Friday 28 June 2019 so a reassessment of Mrs Y’s care needs could be completed. Mr X travelled 45 miles from his home to be present.
8. The assessment concluded Mrs Y’s needs had substantially increased and she needed three calls a day. Mr X says the officer completing the assessment said that would be no problem and said, “even if I have to come in myself we’ll get it covered”.
9. After the officer left Mr X received a telephone call from a different officer at the care agency to say it did not have the staff capacity to meet the care package. Mr X expressed his shock and dissatisfaction and the officer told Mr X she would see if anything could be done and call him back. Mr X remained at Mrs Y’s home wating for the call. Mr X heard nothing, so he called the care agency, but the call was diverted to voicemail. The officer later returned Mr X’s call and reiterated the agency had no capacity to meet the care package.
10. Mr X managed to contact another care company locally who responded immediately and agreed two visits a day starting immediately.
11. Mr X says he does not know how Mrs Y would have coped had he not arranged alternative care.
12. A community nurse visited Mrs Y and expressed concern about the events. Mr X also spoke to social services and the hospital who also expressed concern about the care agency’s actions.
13. The hospital told him if Mrs Y had stayed in hospital other care provision could have been made. This had not happened because the care agency assured Mr X it could provide care and Mrs Y was discharged on that basis.
14. Mr X feels strongly that the care agency should “take responsibility in future with other clients and honour their promises. They should not be allowed to let patients down so badly”.
15. Mr X complained to the care agency on 12 August 2019. The care agency provided a written response on 19 August 2019. The author of the letter confirmed the hospital had been reluctant to discharge Mrs Y, but he quoted from the hospital discharge notes which said, “the son will provide support at home until the care agency have the capacity to start”. He said officers had told Mr X the care agency would need to complete a reassessment of Mrs Y. Following the reassessment, the agency did not have capacity to meet the increased care role until the end of July/August 2019. The author acknowledged that “team members informed you there would not be a problem covering the care and would deliver the care themselves if need be”. He apologised for the officers “eagerness and best intentions”. He went onto sincerely apologise that the agency was not able to provide support for Mrs Y.
16. Mrs Y was later diagnosed with a terminal condition and sadly passed away.

Analysis

17. I understand Mr X was frustrated by the care agency’s actions, and that it must have been a difficult time for him and Mrs Y. I do not consider that further investigation by this office would achieve anything other than an apology, which the agency has already provided in its complaint response.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The complaint will be discontinued.
19. The care agency told Mr X it would be able to meet his late mother’s care needs when she was discharged from hospital. After assessing her needs, it decided it could not. It has apologised to Mr X. Any further investigation by this office would not achieve any more.
20. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman