Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the respite care provided to his later father, Mr Y. This is because we cannot provide Mr Y with a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover, and it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the respite care Mr Y received. Mr X says the Care Provider failed to provide proper oral hygiene care. Mr X says that when Mr Y left the Care Provider he was dehydrated and malnourished. Mr X is concerned the Care Provider did not properly administer Mr Y’s medication and says he found him dressed in another resident’s clothes. Mr X is concerned about a comment a member of staff made at the end of the respite placement. The Care Provider has refused Mr X’s request it refund 50 percent of the respite fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its responses to Mr X’s complaint the Care Provider said:
• It apologised for not removing Mr Y’s dentures for cleaning and said it had introduced new procedures to avoid this happening to other residents.
• Mr Y’s electronic record shows he was given the correct medication.
• It offered Mr Y an average of 2379 ml of fluids each day, his target consumption was 1500 ml, and his average consumption was 1839 ml. Mr Y exceeded the target consumption most days.
• It was appalled Mr Y was dressed in another resident’s clothes and apologised for this. It would replace some handkerchiefs which were missing.
• It was sorry about a comment made by a member of staff. It explained the context and intended meaning of the comment and said it had been discussed with the member of staff during supervision.
• Mr Y ate well during his respite placement. The Care Provider weighed him on admission and staff had no concerns about him being malnourished.
6. I understand how concerned Mr X is about the care his father received. But we will not start an investigation into his complaint. This is because we cannot now provide a remedy to Mr Y for any fault an investigation might uncover as he has sadly passed away.
7. It is also unlikely we could add anything to the Care Provider’s response. It has accepted there were issues with Mr Y’s oral hygiene care and that he was dressed in another resident’s clothes. The main injustice from these issues is to Mr Y, which, as explained above, we cannot now remedy. The Care Provider has apologised for the comment made by a member of staff. We would not offer any additional remedy to this if we were to investigate.
8. I have also not seen any evidence the Care Provider did not properly manage Mr Y’s hydration, food intake, or medication. Mr Y’s health may well have deteriorated during his respite stay. But it is unlikely that if we investigated, we could ever attribute this to the Care Provider’s actions or add anything to the response Mr X has already received.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot provide Mr Y with a remedy for any fault an investigation might uncover or add to the Care Provider’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman