Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. The Care Provider has accepted some fault, apologised, offered £1000 off the bill, and taken action to improve service. I am satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions in response to the complaint. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Care Provider failed to uphold his mother’s (Ms C’s) rights and dignity under care. Male care workers provided intimate care to Ms C despite instruction for female only care workers.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Care Quality Commission’s fundamental standards of care.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms C lives at Galsworthy House nursing home, run by Aria Healthcare Group Ltd (the Care Provider).
8. Mr B says when Ms C moved in a few years ago he signed something to say the Care Provider should only use female care workers for personal care. Mr B says he recently found out some tasks were performed by male care workers.
9. The Care Provider says it has no record of this instruction. The Ombudsman cannot settle that dispute without evidence to support one of the versions. However, the Care Provider has accepted it failed to fully complete its pre-assessment. It did not ask questions about cultural and religious beliefs and 'what is important to me', or if it did it has not recorded the answers. Despite this early error, the Care Provider says there were opportunities over the last two years for Ms C or her family to raise this requirement, such as at care reviews.
10. The Care Provider has apologised, has offered to reduce outstanding fees by £1000, and has explained the actions it will take to improve future service.
11. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. The CQC has published fundamental standards below which care must never fall. The Care Provider may be in breach of the CQC’s fundamental standards of care, for person-centred care and dignity and respect.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because I am satisfied with the Care Provider’s actions in response to the complaint. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.
13. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman