Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (20 007 872)

Category : Adult care services > Residential care

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 May 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider in this complaint. Ms X’s mother’s jewellery was lost because of the actions of a care worker. There were inconsistencies in the Care Provider’s response to Ms X’s complaint. It also failed to offer an adequate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains that care staff at Silversprings Residential Care Home failed to look after her late mother’s wedding and cameo ring. And, when she complained about this it did not respond with sufficient understanding and care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. If there has been fault, we consider whether it has caused an injustice and, if it has, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34H(3) and (4), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a care provider’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have:
  • considered the complaint and discussed it with Ms X
  • considered the correspondence between Ms X and the Care Provider, including the Care Provider’s response to the complaint
  • considered the Care Provider’s response to our initial enquiries
  • taken account of relevant legislation
  • offered Ms X and the Care Provider the opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

  1. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards those registered to provide care services must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards below which care must never fall.
  2. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers who show they meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services and issues reports on its findings. It also has power to enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards.
  3. When investigating complaints about the standards of care in a care or nursing home, the Ombudsman considers if the 2014 regulations and the fundamental standards have been met. If they have not, we consider whether any identified faults have resulted in injustice.

What happened

  1. Ms X’s mother Mrs Y had dementia. She needed full support with all aspects of daily living. In March 2020, she fell at her care home and was subsequently admitted to hospital on 25 March 2020. Mrs Y returned to the care home where she sadly passed away on 25 May 2020.
  2. In August 2020, Ms X asked the funeral director to return Mrs Y’s rings. The funeral director said Mrs Y was not wearing any rings when it collected her from the care home. Ms X contacted the care home manager; she says the manager initially denied any knowledge of the rings and said the rings must be with the funeral director.
  3. Ms X complained to the Care Provider. It responded in writing on 24 September 2020. I have seen a copy of this letter. The author, (manager 1) said, “We have completed an internal investigation and it would appear that when mum was taken to hospital our care worker at the request of the GP remove mum’s rings and placed these in her make up bag for safe keeping”. On Mrs Y’s return to the care home the carer had not returned the rings to Mrs Y’s hand and did not inform senior staff that the rings had been placed in Mrs Y’s make-up bag. The manager acknowledged the sentimental value of the rings and the impact of the loss on Ms X and her brother and offered a sincere apology.
  4. Ms X could not understand why none of the carers noticed Mrs Y was not wearing her rings. She says the rings had great sentimental value; the cameo ring was a gift Mrs Y received from her husband on their 50th wedding anniversary. Ms X says the loss of the rings compounded her distress at losing her mother during lockdown.
  5. Ms X contacted the Care Provider again to express her dissatisfaction with its response. The Care Provider responded in writing on 23 October 2020. I have seen a copy of this letter. The author, (manager 2), said a photograph of Mrs Y confirmed she was wearing the rings prior to her admission to hospital in March 2020, and said “The doctor asked for the rings to be removed for the scan and x-ray, the rings were removed”. She said she had contacted the police in September 2020, and it had advised that Ms X’s brother should contact it directly to report the missing rings. The manager said she had contacted Ms X’s brother to inform him of this. The manager said she had also reported the missing rings to the Council’s safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission. The manager went onto say “Unfortunately personal possessions are not covered and Care UK are not liable for possessions held within residents rooms”. The manager offered no apology.
  6. Ms X believed the response to be uncaring. She was looking for an apology and an acknowledgement of the impact of the lost rings. She was also seeking reassurance that carers were adequately trained to care for residents’ valuables. She also wanted assurance that senior employees dealing with complaints were sufficiently skilled at communicating with relatives.
  7. Ms X received a third undated complaint response letter from another manager (manager 3). I have seen a copy of this letter. The manager reiterated the events and said “...how sorry I was that something so precious from an emotional perspective had gone missing at a time you were still trying to come to terms of the loss of your mum and not being able to spend as much time with her due to the pandemic”. The manager explained the action she had taken, “I have been speaking with my staff team about the importance of ensuring that jewellery such as rings, watches etc. that are removed from a resident for whatever reason should be immediately put in a sealed envelope and passed to the office at the earliest opportunity, from here I have stressed the importance of ensuring that family are notified that the jewellery is now in the homes safe and invited to come and collect the jewellery”,
  8. Mrs Y remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  9. On 31 December 2020, the Care Provider responded to enquiries made by this office. I have seen a copy of this letter. The Care Provider said, that whilst at the hospital a carer had noticed Mrs Y playing with her rings, and that they were loose. The carer removed the rings and placed them in Mrs Y’s make-up bag, and this had been witnessed by a doctor.

Analysis

  1. The Care Quality Commission Guidance says care providers need to protect personal property and money. It is good practice for care providers to have robust systems in place to safeguard care users’ valuable items, they should keep an updated inventory of residents’ valuables and offer a secure place, such as a safe, or a lockable drawer. If belongings do go missing, we expect providers to investigate matters properly to try to find out what happened. This could include interviewing care staff. Care providers are also required to have suitable insurance and the contract with the care user should not attempt to exclude liability for negligence.
  2. The Care Provider says it is not liable for the loss of personal possessions from residents’ rooms. In this case the loss occurred because of a carer’s failure to return Mrs Y’s rings to her when she returned to the care home. This was outside of Mrs Y’s control, and that of her family. The impact of the Coronavirus prevented visits from family so Ms X and her brother were unaware Mrs Y was not wearing her rings.
  3. There are some inconsistencies in the Care Provider’s complaint responses about the exact reason the rings were removed. The first response from manager 1 in September 2020 says the rings were removed at the request of Mrs Y’s GP. The second response from manager 2 in October 2020, says a doctor asked for the rings to be removed before a scan and x-ray. In its response to enquiries from this office the Care Provider said the rings had been removed because Mrs Y was playing with her rings and they were loose. The contradictory explanations suggest an inadequate investigation and/or poor record keeping about the investigation. This must have further undermined Ms X’s confidence in the Care Provider’s investigation.
  4. In respect of Ms X’s complaint that the Care Provider’s complaint responses were uncaring and without apology, I would agree that the complaint response from manager 2 in October 2020 was poor. It lacked empathy and any apology. The complaint responses from manager 1 in September 2020 and the undated response from manager 3 do acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused, however, this does not go far enough. It is without doubt that the rings were lost as a direct consequence of the actions of a care worker, for which the Care Provider is responsible.
  5. Ms X has lost items of significant sentimental value. She also had to pursue complaints about this whilst grieving for her mother.

Agreed action

  1. The Care Provider should within four weeks
  • provide Ms X with a written apology for the faults highlighted above
  • claim on its insurance for the loss of the rings, if this is not possible, it should establish the value of the rings and pay Ms X the value
  • pay Ms X £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble she has been put to pursuing this complaint with the Care Provider and the Ombudsman
  1. Within three months:
  • introduce formal procedures for documenting jewellery that is removed from residents and ensure appropriate training for all staff
  • inform relatives about the new procedure

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider which caused an injustice to Ms X.
  2. The recommendations above are a suitable way to remedy the injustice caused.
  3. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

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.

Privacy settings