Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to Mrs B’s late husband. This is because further investigation by us could not provide Mrs B with a different outcome to that she has received from the Care Provider.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained about the care and support her late husband received from his Care Provider prior to him moving to a new home. Mr B died shortly after moving to a new home and Mrs B is concerned if he had received better care and treatment, his infection may have been picked up sooner and he may not have died. Mrs B complained about poor communication from Mr B’s Care Provider, conflicting information when Mr B ‘s placement was terminated, the dismissive and unhelpful attitude of a member of staff and raised concerns that Mr B had been sedated. Mrs B says she wants to ensure no other family suffers the experiences she has as a result of the actions of Mr B’s Care Provider.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. The Care Provider responded to Mrs B’s complaints and explained what happened. It apologised for the poor communication, and for not advising her of an emergency Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application when there was an incident involving Mr B. it also apologised that Mrs B felt some staff were arrogant and rude and said they had spoken to the individual who said it was not her intention. It apologised for the difficult conversation when explaining the reasons why Mr B could not remain in the home and that Mrs B had received conflicting information when she was asked to sign a long-term placement contract at the same time as being given notice. It explained it has ensured this has been dealt with to avoid a similar incident happening again. The Care Provider said there was no evidence Mr B had been sedated and provided Mrs B with a list of Mr B’s prescribed medications.
6. The Care Provider has apologised to Mrs B for the failings in communication and her perception of how she was made to feel, and further investigation by us could not add to this or make a different finding. Mr B is now sadly deceased so we could not provide him with a remedy even if we investigated and found evidence of fault. We could not make a finding that if he had received different care or treatment sooner he may not have died. This allegation is for a coroner to query if they are concerned a person’s death may have been avoidable. We cannot make this finding. We could not make a finding that Mr B had been sedated when there is no record of this.
7. Mrs B wants to ensure what happened to her does not happen to other families. She has contacted the Care Quality Commission (CQC) who is the Regulator of Care Provider’s. The CQC will decide whether it will consider her concerns in future inspections.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Care Provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman