Residential care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Regal Care Trading Ltd (19 016 946)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 24-Nov-2020

    Summary: The Care Provider failed to administer medication and record interventions properly. This potentially had serious health implications for Mrs D. The Care Provider has agreed to make procedural changes and a payment to Mrs D for uncertainty caused by its actions.

  • Dryclough Manor Limited (19 018 739)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 19-Nov-2020

    Summary: Ms C complains staff at Dryclough Manor refused to allow her father, Mr D, to attend an urgent scan. He was admitted to hospital two days later. The Ombudsman does not find fault as the evidence suggests Mr D chose not to go to the scan.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 019 309)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council should not have accepted his son into a care home as it was not able to meet his needs. We found the care home care was a suitable placement. However, there was fault as the Council failed to conduct a needs assessment to properly determine Y's needs. We recommended an apology, and a review of the Council's procedures.

  • Derbyshire County Council (19 013 433)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the standard of care provided. Mrs Y has raised concerns about five separate matters and there is no evidence to suggest fault causing an injustice in relation to these issues.

  • East Anglia Care Homes Limited (19 020 875)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 17-Nov-2020

    Summary: the evidence does not show the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mr D.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 014 014)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 16-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X's representative complained the Council delayed finding him an alternative placement after his supported living placement broke down. The Council was not at fault. It arranged an interim placement to meet Mr X's care needs. It was at fault when it failed to clearly explain the time limits at the placement. However, this did not cause a significant injustice as Mr X's representative was aware it was a short-term placement. There were some shortfalls in the care provided at the placement. The care home has already taken action to address these. There were also invoicing errors by the Council and delays in referring a safeguarding concern. The Council has already apologised for these errors. That is an appropriate remedy

  • Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (19 011 512)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 13-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the care her (late) mother received at the care home she lived. The Ombudsman found the care home should not have given Mrs M strawberries, which she was allergic to. However, the care home has already apologised for this, as well for two incidents that involved another resident. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice that occurred.

  • Roche Healthcare Limited (19 018 115)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 09-Nov-2020

    Summary: The care provider took appropriate action to supply medication to Mrs X when she was near the end of her life. There is no evidence Mrs X suffered an injustice as a result of the actions of the care provider.

  • Anchor Hanover Group (19 011 533)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 06-Nov-2020

    Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of a care provider in relation to her parents' care. We have discontinued our investigation because Ms B is considering taking legal action against the care provider. This could impact on the Ombudsman's ability to investigate her complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it best to await the outcome of Ms B's decision before he can take a view on whether he is able to investigate.

  • Park Homes (UK) Limited (19 012 217)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 04-Nov-2020

    Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider. It failed to develop a care and support plan for Mrs Y, failed to undertake risk assessments and failed to implement behaviour charts. It also failed to keep contemporaneous records of an injury Mrs Y sustained.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.