Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care short stay in a care home. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Care Provider has taken, and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. The Care Provider has apologised for failures in communication, offered to refund for lost items, and spoken with staff to improve future service.

The complaint

1. Mr D says the Care Provider failed to give acceptable care and service during his respite stay. Mr D says the Care Provider:
• Lost some of his clothes;
• Did not communicate well;
• Food and drinks were not served hot, and were left out of reach so Mr D lost a significant amount of weight during his short stay;
• Nothing to eat after 4.30pm;
• No daily newspaper that Mr D had requested;
• Care workers were sometimes rough in their handling of Mr D;
• Mr D injured his elbow and care staff did not properly clean or dress it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

3. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr D had a short stay at Cheriton Care Home, run by Cheriton Care Centre Ltd (the Care Provider).
8. Mr D raised a complaint after his stay, which the Care Provider responded to. The Care Provider confirms some failings in communication, such as not confirming Mr D had money to pay for a newspaper and not offering meals and snacks. Such issues could have been resolved at the relevant time if Mr D had raised them. The Care Provider has spoken with staff about improving communication with residents, and has apologised to Mr D.
9. The Care Provider recorded Mr D’s weight and confirmed he lost weight during his stay. The Care Provider says Mr D remained at a healthy weight, and because it was a short stay it did not need to make a GP referral as it would have done for a longer-term resident.
10. The Care Provider correctly recorded the injury to Mr D’s elbow and gave first aid. The Care Provider has reminded its staff to tell families of any injury to a resident.
11. The Care Provider said it will refund Mr D for lost clothing, which he estimates as £55.
12. The Care Provider denies rough handling. It is unlikely there would be any evidence to confirm this, so unlikely the Ombudsman could make a finding as it is one person’s word against another.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Care Provider’s investigation or achieve anything further. The Care Provider has apologised for its failings and spoken with staff to improve future service. The Care Provider said it will reimburse Mr D for his lost clothes. The Ombudsman would not consider a financial injustice of £55 is significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman