Bupa Care Homes (AKW) Limited (23 020 716)
- The complaint
- The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- How I considered this complaint
- My assessment
- Final decision
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care in a residential care home. The Care Provider has accepted failings in communication and record keeping, has apologised, and has spoken with staff to improve service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to this or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
- Mr B says the Care Provider failed to act properly when his father, Mr C’s health declined. The Care Provider delayed acting on Mr B’s request for medical support, which delayed Mr C going to hospital. Mr B says the Care Provider failed in its communication, its duty of care, and was not always professional. This has caused Mr B distress. Although the Care Provider has accepted some fault, Mr B wants it to provide an open, transparent, and honest response.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
- the action has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
- it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
- it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr C lived at Erskine Hall Care Home, run by Bupa Care Homes (AKW) Limited (the Care Provider).
- Mr B asked the Care Provider to arrange a GP to see Mr C, as he was concerned Mr C was dehydrated. Mr B understood the Care Provider would arrange this, but it did not do so and failed to tell Mr B its reasons. The Care Provider arranged it the next day when chased by Mr B. A GP attended and admitted Mr C to hospital.
- The Care Provider has apologised for its failure in communication with Mr B on this and on other occasions, and of failing to keep full records.
- 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 keep full and accurate records of the care it has provided. Its records should include relevant discussions with professionals and family members. Its failure in this area may be a breach of the fundamental standards.
- Mr B asked for Mr C’s care records. Mr C has since died, the Care Provider asked for evidence of the estate administrator before releasing information. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with that. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. The ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information.
- The Ombudsman can provide no remedy to Mr C as he has died. Mr B was distressed and frustrated by the Care Provider’s actions, but I consider the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The Care Provider has given Mr B a thorough and reasoned response. It has apologised to Mr B and spoken with its staff to improve service. We would not achieve anything further and would not investigate to ask the Care Provider to send a further response.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Care Provider’s investigation or that an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.
- Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman