Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council’s allocation and monitoring of care providers for the complainant’s mother. This is because investigation by the LGSCO would not add anything to the Council’s response or provide an additional outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms T, complains that the Council:
• Allocated care providers which were not of an acceptable standard, for her mother, M;
• Failed to monitor the care providers adequately and ensure that they always gave M her medication; and
• Failed to ensure there was a proper handover between the two providers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Ms T and by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms T’s mother, M, was supported by care provider A. The brief was to ensure that M was reminded to take her daily medication. Ms T says that the care provider was of a poor standard, and failed to ensure the medication was taken. She asked the Council to change the provider.
5. A new care provider, B, was sourced by the Council. Ms T is dissatisfied with care provider B however, as it is rated by CQC as requiring improvement. She says care provider B has also failed to ensure that M has always taken her medication.
6. Ms T further complained that there was no proper handover from provider A to provider B, causing confusion and distress to M.
7. The Council has investigated the complaint. It has upheld part of it, as it agreed that a handover would have been helpful. It further said that although it had not breached its policies in appointing provider B, despite its CQC rating, it did accept that it would be appropriate to change its procedures so that any provider which requires improvement would no longer be accepted onto new contracts.
8. The Council further said that it had found no evidence to suggest that M’s medication had not been properly dealt with. Records showed that medication was in every case brought to M’s attention, although carers are not allowed to administer it, only to prompt clients.
9. Although Ms T says that the providers made several errors in administering medication, the Council’s response provided an explanation for the specific instances she quoted. I appreciate that Ms T remains dissatisfied with the explanation given, but further investigation would not enable us to provide a different outcome.
10. This is because despite not finding clear evidence of fault by the care providers the Council has accepted Ms T’s key points. It has accepted the need for proper handover procedures, and is changing it procedures in respect of providers which require improvement.
11. In addition, M is now supported by a privately sourced care provider, so there are no improvements to her care for us to secure.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or to the outcomes already achieved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman