Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about adult social care in a residential care home, because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says her mother, Mrs C, received a poor standard of care from Autumn Lodge during her stay there. Mrs C chose to leave but is concerned for other residents.

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:

• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs C moved to Autumn Lodge residential home, ran by Mr & Mrs M Delpinto (the Care Provider). Ms B has authority to bring this complaint on behalf of Mrs C, but Mrs C has capacity and has explained her concerns to her family.
6. Mrs C says staff were rude to her and tried to force her to do more than she felt capable of. Mrs C says the call bell was often out of reach so she could not call for help when needed, and if she did staff would take a long time to come. Mrs C says when going to hospital for an x-ray on her arm, a staff member forcefully put her arm into a sleeve, causing significant pain. Mrs C says she did not get a shower each day.
7. The Care Provider thoroughly considered the complaint and responded. The Care Provider says it could not support Mrs C with mobilising in the same way family was doing prior to admission to the home, or in the way Mrs C wanted. This is because those techniques were unsafe, and the care staff followed correct manual handling techniques to support Mrs C. The Care Provider says its records show 96% of calls from the call buzzer were responded to within the target of two minutes. It apologises for any times when Mrs C had to wait and explained if someone must wait it is because staff are busy assisting other residents. The Care Provider apologised for any times the call bell was out of Mrs C’s reach. The Care Provider explains it was on Mrs C’s care plan to be careful when assisting her dressing, and it was not appropriate to put her arm into the sleeve. The Care Provider has apologised for Mrs C’s distress, has spoken to the staff member involved, and discussed the issue at staff meetings. The Care Provider says Mrs C’s care records shows it did offer her showers, but she often refused because of pain in her arm.
8. The Care Provider has not commented on the allegation its staff were rude or overly forceful with Mrs C.
9. The Care Provider has apologised to Mrs C for failings in its service and has addressed certain issues with its staff to improve future service. Mrs C says she is not seeking a personal remedy, but wants service improved for other residents. There is no evidence the issues of concern are systemic. The Care Provider has a good overall rating from the Care Quality Commission and the Ombudsman has not received other complaints.
10. The Care Provider has remedied Mrs C’s personal injustice by way of apology and raised certain issues with staff to improve future service. Mrs C left the care home after two weeks, so her injustice is not ongoing and was for a relatively short period. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or achieve a different outcome. The actions of the Care Provider have not caused such unremedied injustice to warrant an investigation. There is not evidence of systemic fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman