Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Care Provider handled Mr Y’s oral hygiene. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome for Mrs X. The Care Provider has offered her a personal remedy in line with our guidance, and the Care Quality Commission is involved to oversee any service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to manage her father’s (Mr Y’s) dental hygiene, which may have contributed to a stomach ulcer that caused his death. Mrs X says the care provider did not respond to her complaint until the Care Quality Commission (CQC) became involved. She says the matter has caused her significant distress. She wants the Care Provider to accept fault, apologise and pay her a symbolic financial remedy.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained about the Care Provider’s management of Mr Y’s oral hygiene. The Care Provider’s response to her complaint acknowledged Mr Y was not consistently receiving oral health care that he needed. It explained Mr Y regularly refused oral care but accepted it should have taken more prompt and proactive action when it identified this.
7. The local authority investigated the matter and told Mrs X it had not found neglect by the Care Provider. It explained the Care Provider’s records adequately showed when Mr Y had accepted and refused offers of oral care.
8. If we investigated this complaint, we could not come to any sound conclusions about Mr X’s stomach ulcer and the impact the lack of oral care had on this. We would likely recommend the Care Provider made a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise her distress, including uncertainty about how things may have been different but for fault. Our Guidance on Remedies explains we will normally recommend a figure of up to £500 for distress.
9. The Care Provider apologised to Mrs X and has offered her a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise her distress. This is in line with our guidance and I am satisfied this is a suitable offer. We could not recommend a remedy for injustice to Mr Y himself, as he has passed away.
10. CQC is involved to oversee any necessary service improvements the Care Provider needs to make, and is best placed to do so. CQC has the power to enforce this and can take action where it is not satisfied with a care provider’s actions. If we investigated this complaint, we could not add value as we could not recommend anything more meaningful.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Care Provider has offered Mrs X a symbolic payment in line with our guidance, which I am satisfied is suitable, and CQC will oversee any necessary service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman