Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the level of care provided to her father by his care home. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the level of care provided to her father by his care home. She complains about:
• An incident where her father was left in dirty and wet trousers/
• Poor care provided to her father’s swollen feet.
• Carers not using continence pads with her father.
• Carers not encouraging her father to leave his room and to join in activities.
• Her father’s information was shared with third parties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we decide:
• Investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes, 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), section 34C)

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 X’s father, Mr A, received care in a care home. Mrs X complained about the level of care provided to Mr A while he was in the care home. She complained about several different issues.
6. The care provider investigated and responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The care provider said:
• It could not ascertain exactly when Mr A was found soiled. The care provider noted it had reviewed its records and identified two potential days the incident could have occurred. The care provider did not indicate whether it agreed Mr A had been left in soiled clothes.
• Care staff had noticed Mr A’s swollen feet and provided guidance to Mr A on how to relieve it. When the feet weren’t improving, staff appropriately liaised with healthcare professionals to manage the condition. Records showed healthcare professionals reviewed the matter within a week of care staff noticing the swollen feet.
• It only used continence pads as a last resort. It accepted Mr A had been discharged from hospital with continence pads but said this was due to his mobility. As Mr A’s mobility improved, staff instead supported him with accessing the toilet. The care provider confirmed Mr A wore continence pads throughout the night.
7. An investigation is not justified as it is not likely we would reach any different outcomes and findings. While I have no reason not to believe Mrs X’s account of what happened regarding the incident with her father being left in soiled clothing, it is not likely we’d be able to make any findings on the matter due to the conflicting evidence. This is because the care provider’s records do not indicate Mr A was left in soiled clothing.
8. With regards to the matter of Mr A’s swollen feet, records showed the care home did act without delay to liaise with the relevant healthcare professionals to help treat the condition. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault on this matter.
9. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. This is because she wants the care home to waive its notice period. This is not something we could recommend as the notice period is set out in Mr A’s contract and terms and conditions. Even if we were likely to find fault, recommending the care home waive its notice period would not be a proportionate remedy.
10. Finally, the Information Commissioner’s Office deals with complaints about data handling. Therefore, they are the appropriate body to consider Mrs X’s complaint that Mr A’s details were disclosed to third parties.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman