Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care provided at home, and specifically about the mismanagement of medication. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. There is not enough outstanding injustice to justify our involvement; the Council apologised to recognise the impact of failings in service. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council did not properly listen to her concerns about adult social care it commissioned for her relative, Mr D. Ms B says the Council did not support her and she had to step in to ensure Mr D’s safety because of medication mismanagement by the care company. This caused Ms B anxiety and stress, which she wants the Council to acknowledge. Ms B wants more regulation over care providers to avoid poor care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr D receives care at home from a care provider arranged by the Council. The care provider made errors with Mr D’s medication over several months, despite promises it would train staff and improve service. This did not cause a significant injustice to Mr D’s health but caused him some worry and upset about reporting the issues. It caused Ms B some worry, time and trouble stepping in to support Mr D and raising the concerns with the Council.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. Whilst recognising there has been an impact, and medication errors are a serious matter, I do not consider there is a significant enough injustice in this case to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
8. I also do not consider the Ombudsman would achieve any worthwhile outcome by investigating. The Council has a team who monitor its contracts with care providers to check service provision. The Council took Ms B’s concerns seriously and apologised to her for the impact. The Council was satisfied with the actions the care provider took in response to the concerns, such as retraining staff. The Council did not consider the concerns were serious enough to trigger safeguarding because Mr D did not come to any harm. The risk was removed by changing care provider. It is unlikely we would add anything further and I am satisfied with the actions the Council took in response.
9. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should never fall. The care provider should provide safe care and treatment, including proper and safe management of medicines. Its failures in this area may be a breach of the fundamental standards.
10. Ms B is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not evidence of a significant injustice to justify our involvement, it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a worthwhile outcome. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took to investigate and apologise.
12. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The CQC regulates the care provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman