Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care home. That is because we could not add to the investigation completed by the Care Home, nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the care his mother, Mrs Y received in a care home (the Home). He said the Home, made an error with Mrs Y’s medication and a lack of security allowed her to leave the building. He said its communication with him was poor. He said the Home could not meet the needs of residents with dementia. He believes the Home’s care of Mrs Y led her dementia to deteriorate.
2. Mr X said the Home’s actions had caused him distress. He wants an apology. He also wants the Home to stop advertising itself as providing care for those with dementia.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In the Home’s complaint response, it said:
• There was an isolated incident where it had mismanaged Mrs Y’s medication. It said following that it made a safeguarding referral, notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and addressed it with the individual staff member.
• Mrs Y had left the building after a contractor had left a door open. Again, it had made a safeguarding referral, notified CQC, and reminded contractors about building security.
• On one occasion, Mrs Y left the building through a fire exit. It said it spoke to Mr X at the time and decided to move Mrs Y to a different bedroom, away from any fire escapes.
7. The Home said Mrs Y’s condition deteriorated whilst she was a resident, therefore, it sought support from the Council, Mrs Y’s doctor and a specialist mental health team. It confirmed it also increased the ratio of staff caring for Mrs Y and implemented a positive support behavioural care plan. It said it made the decision to end Mrs Y’s placement, as it could no-longer manage her needs. It said it had evidence of extensive communication with Mr X.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the care provided by the Home further. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Care Home responded to Mrs Y’s chaging care needs to justify our involvement.
9. Although the incidents above were clearly a concern for Mr X, the Home took appropriate action in reporting the matters to safeguarding and the CQC. It also took steps to prevent a recurrence. We could not add to the Home’s investigation. In addition, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Mrs Y after a deterioration in her health. Although Mr X believes the Home was responsible for that deterioration, that is not a finding we could make. Mrs Y has dementia, which is a degenerative disease. Nor could we ask the Home to remove the reference of dementia care from its marketing material. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Care Home’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman