Residential care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Staffordshire County Council (17 008 171)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 20-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council has accepted that failure to ensure a necessary covert medication plan was in place for a period of residential respite care was fault. As a result, an elderly man living with Alzheimers did not receive medication he had been prescribed. His health deteriorated and this resulted in admission to hospital, causing unnecessary distress to him and to his wife.

  • Warrington Council (17 010 736)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 17-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the care received by the complainant's wife. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation.

  • Avery Homes WSM Limited (17 006 591)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 16-Nov-2017

    Summary: There were some faults in how the Care Provider considered what had caused Mrs C to fall out of bed and in its reasons for not seeking medical attention after the fall. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise, pay a total of £500 and improve its procedures. I did not uphold other parts of the complaint.

  • Kent County Council (16 016 551)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 14-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains his mother, Mrs T, missed the opportunity of a care home place because the Council refused funding. The Ombudsmen find the Home refused the place because it could not meet Mrs T's complex needs, rather than because funding was refused. There is therefore no evidence of fault.

  • T M Kelly (16 017 085)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 13-Nov-2017

    Summary: Ms C complained the care home gave her mother Penicillin, even though she has been allergic to it. Ms C also complained about the accuracy of the final care home invoice. The Ombudsman has upheld Ms C's complaint.

  • Manchester City Council (17 011 094)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 10-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to the complainant's concerns about his father. This is because the complainant does not have his father's consent to act on his behalf.

  • Mr John Hall (17 000 068)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 08-Nov-2017

    Summary: There is no evidence Mr X's fall was as a result of poor care. The Care Provider acted appropriately in response to Mr X's fall.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (16 018 215)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 08-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed transferring Mr X's case from the hospital social work team to the community social work team when he was discharged from hospital. It also failed to respond to an email from Mr X's daughter and accepts that it may not have responded to telephone calls in line with service expectations. These failings did not cause Mr X any significant injustice.

  • Hassingham Limited (17 005 553)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 06-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Information Commissioner's Office would be better placed than the Ombudsman's office to consider Ms X's complaint about the poor handling/loss of records by her mother's care home which is part of Hassingham Ltd. I do not therefore intend pursuing the complaint further.

  • Norfolk County Council (16 014 997)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 02-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained to us that his mother's care home had failed to put a bed rails in place, which would have prevented a fall. I found that, although the care home failed to carry out a bed risk assessment, it is unlikely such an assessment would have resulted in bed rails for Mr C's mother.