Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. This is because the Care Provider has accepted failings in service, apologised, and said the action it will take to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to that investigation or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs F says she received poor communication and feedback from the Care Provider caring for her husband, Mr G. Mrs F had concerns about the care provision but did not feel fully involved and supported. Mrs F felt helpless and frustrated.

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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

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. Mr G lived at Chapel House Care Centre (the Care Provider). Mr G’s care was arranged by the Council; it remains responsible to meet Mr G’s adult social care needs even where it has contracted it out to a care provider. So, we consider the Care Provider’s actions are on behalf of the Council, and any findings are against the Council.
6. The Care Provider has accepted some failings in the service it provided to Mr G and failing to involve Mrs F and communicate well with her. The Care Provider has apologised to Mrs F and said what it will do to improve its service. Mr G has died and so we can provide no remedy to him.
7. It was a difficult time for Mrs F, which was made worse by the actions of the Care Provider. However, we would not consider there is a significant enough injustice to Mrs F to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Care Provider has acknowledged where it went wrong, and has apologised to Mrs F. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.
8. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. The CQC has fundamental standards below which a person’s care should never fall. The Care Provider should have provided Mr G with person-centred care meeting the needs and preferences detailed in an individual care plan and should provide care with dignity and respect. The Care Provider should also keep full and accurate records of the care it has provided. The Care Provider accepts it may not have acted on Mr G’s limited urine output, that there were problems with the required air mattress, and that it failed to record a GP visit in Mr G’s notes. Its failures in these areas may be breaches of the fundamental standards.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We will also share the outcome with the Council; its quality assurance team should work with the Care Provider to improve the commissioned service.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs F’s complaint because we would not add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman