Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care in a care home because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the actions of the Care Provider during her husband’s (Mr B’s) stay at Church View Nursing Home. Mrs B says the Care Provider:
• Lost items of clothing and bedding.
• Provided poor quality food, insufficient quantity, and variety.
• Provided inadequate bathing.
• Shaved Mr B with another resident’s equipment.
• Left soiled continence products in Mr B’s bathroom for several days, resulting in horrible smells.
• Failed to provide a fan so the room was too hot, and despite this insisted on a heavy duvet.
• The manager was cold and callous and did not try to speak to Mrs B or return telephone calls.
• Told Mrs B she would need to arrange a taxi to take Mr B home.
• Had rude staff, and on one time she was cut off during a telephone call.
• Shared visors between visitors, only wiping them with a wet wipe between uses.
2. Mrs B says the Care Provider showed a lack of care and respect to Mr B and would like the Care Provider to significantly reduce the outstanding bill.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person complaining. I have used the term fault to describe this. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B lived at the care home for less than three weeks before he returned home to live. The Care Provider has completed a thorough investigation into Mrs B’s concerns and has responded in detail. It has apologised for times Mrs B felt staff were rude or uncaring and says it will reimburse Mrs B for any missing items. It has also identified learning about the recording of the meals it offers individual residents. The Care Provider says many of the concerns were not raised at the relevant time when it could have acted to make a positive change, such as asking for a different pillow or double bagging the continence waste. The Care Provider says when Mr B left the home Mrs B did not say it was because of any poor care.
8. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to this investigation, many of Mrs B’s concerns would be difficult to prove fault. In any event I do not consider the issues complained about cause a significant injustice that would warrant investigation. Especially given the short timescale they occurred, and that Mr B is no longer resident.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because the Care Provider’s actions did not cause a significant injustice to Mr or Mrs B that would warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman