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

The complaint

1. Ms B says the care home did not provide the care they should have to her mother (Ms C) and contributed to Ms C not receiving medical attention. Ms B says the Care Provider is not communicating adequately and not answering their questions. Ms B is disappointed in the lack of concern shown by the Care Provider and her grief is compounded by the disinterest and lack of empathy shown by the Care Provider.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms C went to stay for a week’s break at Avon Lee Lodge residential care home (the Care Provider). Ms C died part way through her stay. Ms C had not been unwell, so her death was completely unexpected, and has left her family with many questions about what happened and why she died.
6. The Care Provider has met with the family to discuss concerns. It has provided written responses including copies of all care notes and statements from relevant care workers.
7. Because Ms C’s death was unexpected the Care Provider alerted the Police and the Care Quality Commission. The Care Provider says Ms C’s death is not being treated as suspicious and is not a reflection of the care it gave.
8. The Care Provider has accepted its care records were not accurate and acknowledges the upset and uncertainty this causes to Ms C’s family, and has apologised to Ms B for that impact. The Care Provider has also explained the actions it will take to improve future service, such as training all staff on the computer recording system to ensure consistency in practice, sharing a copy of the pre-admission assessment with family before admission of the resident, and telephoning family within a few days of admission.
9. Ms B says the local authority safeguarding team is involved. If there is a safeguarding investigation that may provide Ms B with any further answers that are possible to achieve, and if the local authority finds neglect or abuse by the Care Provider it will complete an action plan to improve service to other residents.
10. Ms B also says the family has alerted the coroner to their concerns. If the coroner decides to investigate Ms C’s death this is another route for Ms B to get answers about what happened to Ms C. The coroner is the only route that can conclude how a person came by their death.
11. The Care Provider has been open and transparent in its responses to Ms B. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve anything further by investigation. Ms B has the relevant care records and staff witness statements; it is unlikely there is other evidence to provide any further answers.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Care Provider's investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman