Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s respite home care for her mother Mrs Y. There is insufficient significant injustice to Ms Y or her family caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X is Ms Y’s daughter. Ms Y has Alzheimer’s and lived with Ms X’s sister’s family. The family sought privately funded home care for Ms Y from the Care Provider while the sister’s family was away. Ms Y now lives in a care home. Ms X complains:
1. a carer employed by the Care provider did not tell her when Ms Y’s leg was bruised, nor document the injury;
2. a carer gave Ms Y her evening medication during a late morning visit;
3. the Care Provider produced a care plan which had inaccuracies regarding Ms Y’s conditions and other information.
2. Ms X says that due to the experiences with the care firm, the family decided they could not trust carers to look after Ms Y when they are away. Ms Y has moved to a care home, which the family never wanted to happen. Ms X also knows Ms Y did not want to go to a care home. Ms X says Ms Y has been upset while getting used to the home and she considers Ms Y has ‘given up’. She says the matter has caused great distress to her and her sister and the wider family. Ms X wants the Care Provider looked into, to make sure they are doing what they should.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 actions complained of have not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice from the actions complained of is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Ms X and the Care Provider, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Care Provider has accepted that its carer should have reported Ms Y’s bruise to Ms X and put it on Ms Y’s care record. It has apologised for its carer’s faults. The Care Provider has also acknowledged there was fault by a carer when giving Ms Y her evening medication on a morning visit. The Care Provider says its safeguarding team and the relevant local authority for safeguarding were informed and they spoke to the family about the matter. The Care Provider has also accepted there were errors in the care plan as originally issued and apologised.
7. While there have been faults by the Care Provider here, Ms X does not mention any impacts on Ms Y due to the bruise or how it was dealt with, the medication error, or the care plan inaccuracies. The injustices Ms X claims for Ms Y and the wider family stem from the family’s decision to place Ms Y in a care home, not from any of the matters complained of regarding the Care Provider’s actions or inactions. There is insufficient injustice caused to Ms Y or her family by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.
8. We recognise Ms Y’s family felt compelled to decide to move her to a care home because of their experiences with this Care Provider. The claimed injustices to Ms Y and her family, such as the upheaval and distress caused by the move, stem from that family decision, not from the Care Provider’s fault. We cannot say it was those errors which meant the family had no other option but to move Ms Y to a care home. The respite provision from one firm does not mean the family could not have tried, and would not have been satisfied with, other respite care providers. The family’s decision to place Ms Y in a care home means they have had to select a different provider for her. They have sourced another care firm, and one which is providing more care to Ms Y than if she were still living with family and receiving sporadic respite care.
9. We have noted errors by the Care Provider in Ms Y’s care. We understand the outcome Ms X seeks from her complaint is for the Care Provider to be assessed to see if it is acting as it should. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) gathers and receives information about the performance of care firms and can use that evidence to inform its assessments of regulated providers. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the CQC so it may take it account when next assessing the Care Provider. It is a matter for the CQC to decide how it uses this information.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient significant injustice caused to Ms Y or her family by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman