Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provider’s handling of Mrs X’s husband’s care. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about a care provider’s handling of her husband’s care. She says the care provider has been dishonest, failed to meet external standards, and had a poor understanding of the ethical-legal framework within which care is provided. She also complains about the care provider’s handling of her complaint.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s husband, Mr A, was receiving end of life care at home from the care provider. The complaint arose due to the withdrawal of two carers.
6. The care provider had decided to withdraw Carer 1 from providing care to Mr A. This was due to the Carer 1 being needed to provide carer to another customer. The care provider initially told Mrs X Carer 1 was being withdrawn due to a family emergency.
7. The care provider said once it was aware of Mrs X’s disappointment and dismay at its decision, it decided to keep Carer 1 with Mr A and to source another carer for the other customer. The care provider said it managed to do this so Mr A’s care was never jeopardised.
8. In response to the complaint, the care provider accepted its initial explanation was not correct. In response to our enquiries, the care provider said it provided this explanation as it thought if the correct reason was given, it would not be well received as it was tricky to explain one customer’s needs over another. Therefore, I am of the view the care provider intended to provide an inaccurate reason for its decision.
9. However, I am satisfied an investigation on this point is not proportionate as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. This is because the care provider apologised for its action and acted at the time to put things right by ensuring the carer remained to provide care to Mr A. There is no evidence Mr A’s care was compromised or interrupted. I am satisfied this was a reasonably remedy to put right the distress caused to Mrs X at the time and an investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.
10. The second carer was withdrawn due to concerns about the quality of their work and lack of professionalism. This arose following spot checks and supervision. The care provider said it was aware Mrs X wanted to keep the carer, so it provided additional support and training to Carer 2. However, after further incidents of unprofessionalism, the care provider made the decision to remove Carer 2.
11. During its complaint investigation, the care provider accepted it did not informed Mrs X of its decision in a timely manner. It also accepted it should have discussed with Mrs X the implications of its decision and the options available. The care provider apologised for the distress caused by this.
12. An investigation is not proportionate on this point as the care provider has explained its reasons for withdrawing Carer 2 and apologised for the distress caused by the delay in informing Mrs X of its decision. Therefore, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
13. I recognise Mrs X wanted to care provider to keep Carer 2. Any employment issues are for the care provider, and it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on these matters. It is clear from the evidence the care provider withdrew Carer 2 due to concerns over their quality of work and the risk of unsafe care. I am satisfied this decision was made in the care provider’s capacity as an employer.
14. Finally, as we are not investigating the substantive matters that led to Mrs X’s complaint, it would not be proportionate to investigate solely to consider the care provider’s handling of her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman