Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her late mother’s care provider. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

The complaint

1. Ms B says her late mother’s, Mrs C’s, care provider was unprofessional and lacked compassion. Ms B says Mrs C’s care provider:

• failed to assess Mrs C’s needs;
• told her to urinate in pad instead of taking her to the toilet;
• left in her wheelchair facing the wall;
• left her in same tee- shirt she was in the previous day;
• over medicated her and gave her co-codamol which exacerbated her constipation;
• refused to call ambulance when requested saying an ambulance would not attend for constipation;
• left her soaked in urine, excrement and tea.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Ms B and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs C moved into a residential care home in March 2019 and was discharged to a different home in April 2019. Sadly, Mrs C died in May 2019.
5. Ms B is concerned the care provider did not assess Mrs C’s needs prior to her moving into the home or during the time she was resident there.
6. The care provider says Mrs C initially went to the home for a period of respite on the understanding it would assess her for a permanent placement. Ms B says this is incorrect. Ms B says Mrs C did not go into the home for respite but as a permanent resident.
7. The care provider says the day before moving into the home Mrs C’s son advised verbally that Mrs C was mainly self-caring and mobile but demanding of him. The care provider explained it was important to know because they do not provide nursing care or support for people with complex needs. The care provider says on admission Mrs C was in a wheelchair and appeared reluctant to walk or transfer to an armchair. The care provider says the assessment process was discussed with Mrs C’s son and he was advised the home may not be able to manage her care needs. The care provider says when it concluded the assessment process, it determined it could not provide for Mrs C’s long-term care needs. The care provider says it advised Mrs C’s son of the outcome and said she could remain in the home until a suitable placement was found. Mrs C moved to a nursing home in April.
8. The care provider says Mrs C was displaying signs of dementia and although this was not a professional diagnosis was based on their understanding of the behaviours Mrs C was presenting such as smearing herself with urine and faeces even though she was continent of both, refusing to get dressed/undressed, or eat foods offered to her or allow staff to provide personal care. It said Mrs C made many calls for assistance and records show each call was responded to and she was given support as needed.
9. The care provider disputes Ms B’s view it was unprofessional and uncaring and was surprised to receive her complaint following Mrs C’s death.
10. The care provider says Mrs C did not receive excessive medication. It says Mrs C’s medication was administered as prescribed by her GP. It acknowledged Mrs C sometimes wanted to sit in her wheelchair and would on occasions be reluctant to accept personal care. It says it contacted her GP when necessary, advised family members the ambulance service would not usually come out for cases of constipation but invited them to call if they felt it was necessary. The care provider said it would not tell residents to use a pad instead of offering to assist to the toilet but would reassure them it was okay if their pads were soiled.
11. Ms B says she did not complain at the time for fear of reprisals. However, as the care provider has explained if it had received the concerns she raises now at the time it would have been able to reassure Ms B and Mrs C it had taken them seriously.
12. Sadly, Mrs C is now deceased so any injustice to her from any fault the Ombudsman might uncover if he investigated cannot be remedied. Ms B says the care provider’s response to her complaints include several untruths and inaccuracies. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding. This is because much of what Ms B is concerned with is not subject to evidence-based records. While Ms B disputes the care provider’s findings and has not had answers to all the questions she has asked, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to provide these answers. Ms B has not been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
13. If Ms B is concerned about the care other residents may be subject to, she can ask the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as the regulator of care providers to monitor her concerns during it inspections. Information about the CQC can be found on the website below:

https://www.cqc.org.uk/give-feedback-on-care?referer=CQCExplorecolumn1

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman